APR  20  1977 


^LOGICAL  St^. 


DC  266.5  .A5  1916 
Allison,  John  Maudgridge 

Snowden,  1888-1944. 
Church  and  state  in  the 

reian  of  Louis  PhiliDDe 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2014 


https://archive.org/details/churchstateinreiOOalli_0 


Church  and  State  in  the  Reign  of 


Louis  Philippe 

1830-1848 


A  DISSERTATION 
presented  to  the 
Faculty  of  Princeton  University 
in  Candidacy  for  the  Degree 
of  Doctor  of  Philosophy 


JOHN  M.  S.  ALLISON 

INSTRUCTOR  IN  HISTORY  IN  YALE  UNIVERSITY 


PRINCETON  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 
PRINCETON 

LONDON:  HUMPHREY  MILFORD 
OXFORD  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

1916 


Published  July,  1916 

Accepted  by  the  Department  of  History  and  Politics 
April,  1914 


The  author  wishes  to  express  his  indebtedness  to  Professor 
Henry  R.  Shipman  of  Princeton  University,  whose  constant 
interest  and  timely  suggestions  have  been  of  invaluable  assist- 
ance. He  also  wishes  to  acknowledge  the  services  of  the 
late  Professor  John  H.  Coney  of  Princeton,  whose  high 
ideals  of  scholarship  and  historical  method  will  always  be  a 
source  of  inspiration  toward  more  serious  and  conscientious 
effort.  In  addition  he  wishes  to  thank  Professor  Chauncey  B. 
Tinker  of  Yale  University  for  his  kind  assistance  in  the 
matter  of  proofreading  and  correction. 

J.  M.  S.  A. 

New  Haven,  July  191 5. 


MY  MOTHER 


CHAPTER  I 


THE  JULY  MONARCHY 

The  Period  of  the  French  Revolution,  the  Napoleonic  Em- 
pire and  the  Bourbon  Restoration  offers  a  curious  contrast, 
for  it  presents  in  the  brief  space  of  forty-one  years  the 
thoughts  and  actions  of  two  centuries,  the  one  the  nineteenth, 
the  other  the  eighteenth.  The  first  was  modern  while  the 
second,  viewed  in  the  light  of  present  day  conditions,  seems 
almost  mediaeval.  It  is  an  odd  coincidence  that  the  modern 
theories  and  ideals  of  the  latter  half  of  the  eighteenth  cen- 
tury were  rejected  in  the  era  of  Napoleon  and  it  is  only 
after  the  July  Revolution  that  what  are  known  as  Nineteenth 
Century  principles,  those  very  theories  on  which  the  Revolu- 
tion was  based,  were  expounded  and  put  to  practical  use. 
The  Revolution,  then,  did  not  end  with  the  Congress  of 
Vienna,  nor,  for  that  matter,  with  the  July  Revolution.1 
Metternich  and  his  satellites  had  deluded  the  French  into 
accepting  once  more  a  Bourbon  and  had  covered  the  reactionary 
medicine  which  they  sought  to  administer  to  them  with  a 
coating  of  constitutionalism.  But  the  Charter  of  1814  had 
soon  appeared  in  its  true  form,  and  became  for  the  French 
a  cause  of  disappointment  in  more  ways  than  one,  but  prin- 
cipally because  it  had  been  an  act  of  grace  emanating  from 
the  monarch  and  granted  by  him  to  the  people — "une  charte 
octroyee."  Then  too  it  was  a  veiled  deception,  for  its  four- 
teenth article  allowing  the  king  to  promulgate  special  laws 
in  time  of  danger,  had  rendered  null  and  void  all  the  so-called 
liberties  and  political  privileges  granted  to  the  people.  If 
Louis  XVIII  did  not  perceive  its  weakness  and  consequently 
his  own  increased  power,  this  was  not  to  be  the  case  with 
his  brother  the  Comte  d'Artois  (later  Charles  X).  That  reac- 
tionary prince  had  at  once  seen  clearly  the  possibilities  of  the 
charter  as  affected  by  the  article  and  seized  upon  the  occasion 
of  the  assassination  of  the  due  d'Orleans  to  show  his  brother 

1  de  Crozales  Guizot  Intro.  10. 

1 


the  hidden  usefulness  of  the  document  the  allies  had  nego- 
tiated for  him.  But  the  old  monarch's  days  were  numbered 
and  he  made  little  use  of  his  newly  discovered  political  me- 
dium; and  soon  to  Charles  X  fell  the  heritage  of  the  throne, 
the  Charter  and  the  Fourteenth  Article. 

Supported  by  the  returned  emigres,  envious  and  eagerly  seek- 
ing compensation  for  their  confiscated  property,  it  was  not 
long  before  the  new  king  made  way  with  the  very  slight 
vestiges  of  revolutionary  privilege  existing  in  the  Restoration, 
then  upheld  by  the  old  regime,  the  "Congregation  de  la  rue 
du  Bac"  and  the  Holy  Alliance,  Charles  X  prepared  to  in- 
augurate a  thorough  policy  of  reaction.  In  the  meantime, 
however,  things  had  been  happening  under  the  surface  to 
which  the  old  king  was  blind,  flattered  as  he  was  by  his 
courtiers,  by  the  unctuous  praises  of  Metternich  and  the  pious 
wishes  of  the  Pope  who  sought  an  annulment  of  the  hated 
Concordat. 

Another  Revolution  had  taken  place,  this  time  not  in  the 
streets  of  Paris,  but  in  the  minds  of  her  inhabitants  and  of 
the  people  of  the  provinces.  Two  forces  were  at  work,  one 
still  nascent,  the  other  on  the  verge  of  maturity.  The  former 
was  religious,  reformative,  Jansenist  in  a  way,  yet  tinged 
with  a  certain  romantic  mysticism  that  recalls  the  Molinists 
of  the  seventeenth  century.  And  as  this  new  train  of  re- 
ligious thought  developed,  the  other  movement,  guided  by 
men  more  active  in  the  affairs  of  the  world,  seized  upon  it 
and  applied  its  principles  to  politics.  Thus  almost  simul- 
taneously arose  La  Mennais  and  the  adherents  of  his  school 
of  ideas  as  set  forth  at  La  Chesnaie,  and  a  notable  phalanx 
of  the  governmental  opposition  distinguished  principally  by 
a  small  but  efficient  group  known  as  the  younger  "Doctrinaires" 
and  composed  of  such  men  as  de  Broglie,  Guizot,  Thiers  and 
Mole,  the  apostles  of  a  bourgeois  rule  and  a  policy  of  "juste 
milieu"  so  soon  to  come. 

The  new  movement  for  religious  reform  is  easily  accounted 
for.  The  cause  was  the  obvious  evils  of  the  Concordat  which 
restricted  priestly  activities  and  reduced  the  church  to  a  state 
of  entire  subordination  to  the  policy  of  the  government.  This 
new  group,  then,  composed  of  men  in  accord,  for  the  time 


2 


being,  with  the  Doctrinaires,  were  to  seek  to  gain  their  political 
privileges  in  an  open  and  honest  way,  by  a  public  campaign. 
Charles  X  had  placed  the  throne  upon  the  altar  and  thereby 
had  given  rise  to  a  dangerous  sort  of  Gallicanism  somewhat 
similar  to  that  of  the  Empire  but  in  no  way  resembling  the 
pure  Gallicanism  of  1682.  It  was  to  the  breaking  up  of  this 
alliance  and  what  must  be  its  fatal  consequences  that  the 
new  party  for  religious  reform  directed  its  energies.  But  if, 
in  their  eyes,  the  good  name  of  the  church  was  smirched 
by  the  toleration  of  a  bastard  Gallicanism  it  was  still  further 
endangered  by  the  ceaseless  intrigues  of  the  "petite  figlise" 
or  "parti  pretre"  composed  of  Ultramontanes  and  Jesuits,  both 
of  whom  regretted  the  passing  of  the  ancient  regime  with  its 
comfortable  privileges.  This  internal  evil  too,  they  must 
combat.  The  first  intimation  the  clergy  of  France  had  re- 
ceived of  such  a  movement  had  come  from  the  abbe  de  La 
Mennais.    It  was  an  appeal  to  abstain  from  intrigue: 

"Be  bishops,  be  priests,  nothing  more.    What  are  petty  ^es 
quarrels  of  the  world  to  you ;  quarrels  in  which  men  only  Progres," 
engage  for  error  and  self-interest." 

But  even  as  he  wrote,  it  appeared  to  him  that  if  France 
was  to  be  saved,  the  clergy  must  do  more  than  merely  survey 
the  course  of  events  from  their  high  station.  And  so  farther 
on  in  the  same  book  he  calls  them  forth  to  prepare  for  a 
struggle  not  in  the  spirit  of  self-interest,  but  in  that  of 
humanity.  For  La  Mennais  was  a  prophet  and  could  often- 
times forsee  events  with  more  clearness  than  the  experienced 
doctrinaires.  Realizing  that  the  fall  of  the  existing  dynasty 
was  near  at  hand  he  wished  to  have  a  party  in  readiness  to 
support  the  church  at  that  time.  Like  others,  he  feared  that 
the  church's  time-worn  policy  of  relying  on  the  Bourbons 
might  in  the  end  draw  it  down  to  a  fate  such  as  they  had 
suffered  in  1789.  He  therefore  sought  a  political  theory  which 
by  its  very  essentials  would  allow  of  a  union  between  the 
religious  reformers  and  the  better  class  of  politicians.  This, 
he  believed,  would  save  the  church  and  France. 

"Si  le  liberalisme  etait  chretien,  je  serais  liberal  demain."       E.  F°^gu^ 

He  did  not  long  search  in  vain.    Already  a  moderate  liberal  La  Mennais, 
party  was  in  the  field  which  was  in  accord  with  liberal  catholic  64 
views  and  from  which  La  Mennais  had  reason  to  hope  for 

3 


de  Crozales, 


much  assistance.  At  one  and  the  same  time  philosophical 
and  political  the  theories  of  the  Doctrinaires  were  rapidly 
coming  into  prominence.  They  find  their  origin  in  the  experi- 
ences of  some  of  their  elders  who  had  seen  the  Revolution 
and  the  Empire  and  who  realized  that  the  failure  of  these  two 
institutions  had  come  about  through  the  lack  of  a  set  doctrine 
and  a  determined  principle.  Their  basis  was  the  correlation 
of  three  factors,  a  nation,  a  king,  and  a  parliament.  Not  one, 
but  all,  were  to  make  up  the  whole.  The  king  alone  cannot 
reign  without  the  parliament  and  the  nation.  These  three 
elements  make  possible  the  Law,  which  is  the  life  of  an  in- 
stitution; to  borrow  a  simile:  "Neither  wood,  nor  air,  nor 
flint,  taken  separately  is  the  unique  principle  of  fire ;  but  when 
they  are  properly  related  and  applied  to  a  common  effect,  the 
"102        flame  bursts  forth." 

Basing  their  views  on  a  theory,  then,  this  group  headed  by 
Guizot,  Royer-Collard,  de  Broglie,  and  for  a  time,  Thiers  had 
become  known  as  the  Theorists  or  Doctrinaires.  The  Globe 
was  their  political  mouthpiece  and  was  directed  for  the  most 
part  by  younger  men ;  while  de  Remusat,  Duchatel  and  Sainte- 
Beuve,  all  of  them  adherents  of  the  "Jeunesse  Liberale  et 
Romantique,"  were  counted  among  its  contributors. 

W  ith  such  views,  it  is  not  surprising  to  read  that  these 
Doctrinaires  and  the  "ecole  menaisienne"  soon  found  mutual 
grounds  of  sympathy,  and  an  alliance  sprang  up  between  the 
two — a  union  further  cemented  by  their  common  approval  of 
the  expulsion  of  the  Jesuits.  And,  while  this  combination 
would  never  have  been  powerful  enough  to  instigate  a  revo- 
lution, nevertheless  it  was  sufficiently  strong  to  take  advantage 
of  an  uprising  when  it  did  occur.  This  opportunity,  further- 
more, was  not  far  off  and  as  early  as  1827  one  of  the  liberals 
had  heralded  its  near  approach  in  the  following  terms: 
E.  Forgues      "I  see  that  many  are  worrying  about  the  Bourbons:  they 

Corresp.  de  are  not  mistaken  in  so  doing  for  I  believe  they  will  experience 
La  Mennais,    ,      .         .   ,  _ 
3  Nov.  1827  the  fate  of  the  Stuarts.  - 

2  See  also  letter  of  d'Herbelot  to  Montalembert  9  Oct.  1824.  "La 
Jeunesse  Liberale:  Lettres  d'Herbelot."  Later  in  another  letter  (E. 
Forges.  Corresp.  Lettre  a  M.  de  Champy)  :  La  Mennais  foretells 
"une  nouvelle  crise  dans  la  Revolution  qui  n'a  fait  que  commencer; 
bien  qu'elle  soit  aussi  vieille  que  moi." 


4 


The  years  1827-1829  witnessed  the  increase  of  political 
tension  and  the  rise  of  a  genuinely  hostile  feeling  towards 
the  government.  This  condition  should  have  warned  the 
foolish  king  of  his  perilous  situation ;  but  he  seemed  utterly 
oblivious  to  it.  In  1830  the  crash  came;  the  dissolution  of 
Parliament  upon  its  reply  to  the  King's  address,  Polignac's 
fatal  move,  the  unfavourable  elections,  and  the  July  Ordinances 
were  all  that  were  necessary  to  cause  the  more  extreme 
malcontents  to  revolt  and  the  ''first  emigre"  to  assume  his 
familiar  role  and  retire  to  England.  A  new  era  was  pro- 
claimed for  France,  a  new  monarchy,  and  a  new  freedom. 

Politically  the  reign  of  Louis  Philippe  falls  into  four  prin- 
ciple divisions ;  the  period  of  Formation,  lasting  to  the  fall  of 
the  Laffitte  Ministry  in  1831 ;  the  Period  of  Parliamentary 
Struggle,  a  time  of  the  reformation  and  reorganization  of 
political  parties  ending  in  the  breach  between  Thiers  and 
Guizot  in  1836;  this,  in  turn  was  followed  by  the  Period  of 
Parliamentary  Rivalry  and  Decline,  and  the  "last  Period" 
which  we  will  call  the  Transformation  and  Disorganization 
of  the  July  Monarchy ;  eight  years  in  all,  during  which  time 
the  government  under  the  sole  leadership  of  one  man,  Guizot. 
experienced  a  change  foreign  to  its  origin,  and  then  fell. 

At  the  very  outset  the  July  Monarchy  was  threatened  by  a 
serious  division,  a  sad  augury  for  future  times.  The  Legis- 
lative Body,  now  somewhat  depleted  by  the  hasty  departure 
of  certain  timorous  members,  presented  a  curious  aspect,  com- 
posed, as  it  was,  of  a  heterogeneous  crowd  of  political  idealists.3 
A  common  agreement  between  them  would  have  been  im- 
possible. There  was,  for  instance,  a  distinct  line  of  difference 
between  the  deputies  who  met  at  the  house  of  M.  Lafrltte, 
a  prominent  banker,  and  those  who  gathered  at  the  Hotel  de 
Ville  under  the  control  of  La  Fayette.  The  first  party  made 
up  of  prominent  business  men,  favored  some  sort  of  a  policy 

3  "L'opposition,  comme  il  arrive  presque  toujours  au  lendemain  des 
grandes  commotions  politiques,  etait  le  refuge  ouvert  a  tous  les  debris 
des  partis  vaincus :  demagogues  endurcis.  ardents  republicans,  bonapar- 
tistes  impatients  d'une  revanche,  s'y  rencontrent  meles  plutot  qu'unis, 
car  ils  n'avaient  reellement  de  commun  qu'une  profonde  aversion  pour 
ce  qui  personifiait  a  leurs  yeux,  l'ancien  regime,  c'est  a  dire,  la  cour, 
la  noblesse,  le  clerge."    Boutard  II.  24-25. 


5 


of  reconciliation  with  the  family  of  Charles  X,  now  at  Ram- 
bouillet,  while  the  group  who  had  established  themselves  at 
the  Hotel  de  Ville  displayed  marked  tendencies  toward 
Republicanism.  But,  uncertain  of  their  strength,  both  hesi- 
tated to  make  a  public  declaration.  Profiting  by  this  delay 
another  group,  not  definitely  organized  but  distinguished  by 
the  adherence  of  a  certain  number  of  Doctrinaires,  met  at 
the  house  of  Casimir  Perier,  also  a  prominent  financier,  and 
there,  led  by  Guizot,  Sebastiani  and  Yillemain,  they  set  to 
work  upon  a  plan  to  organize  a  temporary  form  of  government. 
The  next  day  the  Monitear  contained  the  following  notice: 

"The  deputies  at  Paris  have  been  forced  to  come  together 
in  order  to  counteract  the  serious  danger  menacing  the  safety 
of  the  people  and  of  property. 

"A  committee  has  been  appointed  to  watch  over  public  in- 
terests in  the  absence  of  all  regular  organization. 


The  above  list  made  official  by  a  second  publication  the 
following  day,  is  important  for  it  shows  what  negotiations 
must  have  been  carried  out  on  the  night  preceding  its  pub- 
lication. It  comprises  men  of  different  parties,  but  its  main 
significance  is  the  fact  that  it  marks  the  temporary  union  of 
the  two  sections  of  Parliament  convened  at  the  houses  of 
M.  Laffitte  and  Casimir  Perier.  Events  no  longer  moved 
slowly ;  a  regent  was  soon  appointed. 

It  is  difficult  to  ascertain  just  how  the  name  of  Louis 
Philippe  was  proposed.  For  some  time  he  had  been  the  hero 
of  a  certain  group  of  politicians  who  were  discontented  and 
who  were  believed  to  have  democratic  tendencies,  Then  too, 
the  Palais-Royal  had  long  been  the  rendezvous  for  a  rather 
heterogeneous  clientele,  and  as  such  had  been  regarded  by 
the  family  of  Charles  X  as  a  by  no  means  impossible  menace 
to  their  security.  There  have  been  much  talk  and  many 
anecdotes  of  the  intrigue  attending  the  nomination  of  Louis 


Moniteur, 
29  et  30 
Juillet,  1830 


M.  W.  Comte  Gerard 
Jacques  Laffitte. 
Comte  de  Laban 
Mauguin 
Odier 

Casimir  Perier 
de  Schonen." 


6 


Philippe  to  the  French  throne ;  in  all  likelihood,  however,  these 
stories  are  mere  fiction  spun  for  the  pleasure  of  the  historical 
romancers,  for  there  is  very  little  evidence  to  indicate  that  L-  ^i^fe 
the  suggestion  of  the  Duke  of  Orleans  required  any  com-  v<  fhureau 
plicated  or  insidious  wire-pulling  on  the  part  of  his  supporters.  Hi^a"gQ^  ^ 
His  name  was  probably  brought  before  the  public  in  the  same 
way  that  other  names  in  other  times  had  been  proposed  and 
accepted,  at  the  critical  moment,  and  by  a  man  who  understood 
only  too  well  the  time  for  a  coup  d'etat.  In  this  instance,  the 
promoter  seems  to  have  been  Adolphe  Thiers  who,  by  launch- 
ing forth  an  unofficial  proclamation  caused  Louis  Philippe 
to  be  accepted  as  lieutenant-general  of  the  realm.  After  much 
hesitation  on  his  own  part  the  Duke  of  Orleans  was  finally 
persuaded  to  come  to  Paris  and  to  assume  his  duties.  His 
journey  to  the  Capitol,  however,  was  but  half  the  effort  re- 
quired and  when  he  arrived  in  Paris  the  Duke  found  that 
his  most  difficult  part  was  yet  to  be  played;  he  must  con- 
ciliate, and  then  be  accepted  by,  the  Republicans  who  had 
not  been  consulted.  This  effort  would  bring  with  it  a  certain 
amount  of  personal  danger,  but  having  gone  so  far  the  Regent- 
elect  was  not  to  be  turned  back,  and  he  determined  on  a 
personal  visit  to  La  Fayette.  Accordingly  he  set  out  at  once 
for  the  Hotel  de  Ville,  accompanied  by  the  deputies  whose 
escort  he  accepted  only  upon  their  urgent  request.  The  march 
to  the  Republican  headquarters  was  not  the  calm  affair  some 
would  have  us  believe ;  the  mob  was  sullen,  and  even  before 
the  end  of  the  journey  gave  vent  to  a  genuinely  hostile  demon- 
stration, while  the  reception  of  the  Orleanist  couriers,  sent 
in  advance,  was  not  the  most  cordial.4  Shortly  after  the 
Duke's  arrival  occurred  the  historic  scene  on  the  balcony  of 
the  Hotel  de  Ville  where,  wrapped  in  the  folds  of  the  tri- 
colour, La  Fayette,  "homme  aux  indecisions"5  embraced  the 
future  king.  The  crowd  cheered,  flags  waved,  and  by  the 
weak  act  of  an  old  man  France  was  led  to  accept  the  Duke 

4  Metternich  Memoirs  I.  22 :  Account  of  General  Belliard. 

L.  Blanc  (Hist.  I.  166)  relates  that  when  the  envoy  of  Louis  Phillipe 
arrived  at  the  Hotel  de  Ville  to  warn  La  Fayette  of  the  Duke's  approach 
and  to  offer  him  terms  of  compromise,  the  old  general  cried  out 
"Say  not  one  word  more  of  accommodation  or  I  will  call  the  people." 

6  As  Mirabeau  called  him. 


7 


Proclama-  as  her  deliverer  and  to  believe  his  words — "La  Charte  sera 
ion  du  due     ,  •  v  >• 

d'Orleans,     desormais  une  vente. 

M°n}** u£  Q  Thus  the  mob,  swayed  by  La  Fayette,  played  their  part  and 
*  0U  played  it  well,  for  it  seems  that  the  Orleanists  believed  as 

firmly  in  the  free  selection  of  Louis  Philippe  by  the  people  of 
1830,  as  their  over-credulous  predecessors,  the  invaders  of 
1814,  did  in  the  popularity  of  Louis  XVIII.  It  now  remained 
for  the  remnant  of  deputies  in  Paris  to  make  the  duke  a 
king.  There  were,  however,  other  questions  antecedent  to  the 
choice  of  a  king  that  must  first  be  settled,  otherwise  they 
would  have  the  same  vexing  problem  of  constitutional  prero- 
gative to  bring  on  another  revolt.  On  the  sixth  of  August 
all  negotiations  with  the  Bourbons  were  closed,  and,  on  the 
motion  of  Berard,  the  amenable  Chamber  of  Deputies  declared 
the  throne  vacant.  The  revision  of  the  constitution  became 
the  order  of  the  day  and  this  work,  in  turn,  became  the 
privilege  of  a  few,  who,  profiting  by  the  confusion  in  the 
Chambers,  succeeded  in  presenting  a  charter  conformable  to 
their  own  wishes.6  Four  main  revisions  were  made  and  these 
it  is  particularly  our  purpose  to  note. 

The  first  two  alterations  took  the  form  of  corrections  and 
preventions  of  the  evils  in  the  charter  of  1814.  Charles  X 
had  produced  the  July  Ordinances  by  virtue  of  Article  Four- 
teen which  allowed  him  to  promulgate  special  laws  of  any 
character  whatsoever  in  times  of  danger.  This  clause  was 
suppressed.  The  preamble  of  the  charter  was  the  next  clause 
attacked.  By  reason  of  its  opening  statement  the  Constitution 
of  1814  has  become  known  as  "la  Charte  octroyee,"  for,  by  it 
the  charter  became  an  act  of  grace  coming  from  the  monarch 
and  conferred  through  his  generosity  and  royal  favour,  when, 
in  reality,  the  Charter  had  -been  intended  to  serve  as  a  con- 
tract between  sovereign  and  subject,  a  contract,  furthermore 
submitted  to  him  by  the  people.  So  at  the  outset  two  evils 
of  the  Restoration  were  abolished.  The  two  other  changes 
are  important  and  curious  as  well,  for,  while  they  concern 

""We  cannot  close  our  eyes  to  the  fact  that  the  Chamber  of 
Deputies  is  pliable  and  does  not  understand  its  own  policy.  In  their 
eyes  they  seem  to  think  it  is  a  question  of  mere  change  of  cabinet 
and  not  of  a  revolution."  d'Herbelot  to  Montalembert.  6  Aout  1830. 
Lettres  d'Herbelot. 


8 


the  social  and  religious  welfare  of  the  people,  they  became, 
nevertheless,  through  the  absurd  policy  of  the  government, 
two  evils  that  had  almost  the  same  effect  on  the  July  Monarchy 
that  the  Preamble  and  Fourteenth  Article  had  exercised  on 
the  Restoration.  Their  content  and  purpose  were  excellent 
but  as  interpreted  by  the  government,  they  soon  became  gross 
evils.  One  of  the  new  articles  declared  that  "the  Clergy  of 
the  Catholic,  Apostolic  and  Roman  Religion,  professed  by 
the  majority  of  Frenchmen,  and  the  clergy  of  other  denomina- 
tions as  well,  shall  receive  salaries  from  the  public  treasury," 
while  Article  Sixty-Nine  promised  laws  granting  liberty  of, 
association,  of  the  press  and  instruction.7  These  four  changes 
imply  much  and  foreshadow  what  it  was  hoped  would  be  the 
future  policy  of  France.  In  brief,  they  present  in  a  clear 
and  concise  form  the  very  raison  d'etre  of  the  July  Monarchy ; 
a  break  with  the  principles  of  the  Holy  Alliance.  This  rup- 
ture, in  turn,  involved  many  things :  within  the  borders  of 
France  it  meant  a  change  in  the  relations  of  Church  and 
State  (where  the  throne  had  been  upon  the  altar,  the  altar 
would  now  be  tolerated  upon  the  throne)  and  a  policy  of 
adherence  to  the  charter  in  its  widest  and  most  comprehensive 
sense ;  while  for  international  affairs  it  implied  an  entire  read- 
justment of  foreign  relations,  a  new  alliance  with  England, 
a  neutral  attitude  in  the  case  of  rebellious  bordering  provinces 
and  yet  a  tacit  approval  of  all  liberal  movements  in  countries 
with  conditions  similar  to  those  in  France.  On  this  policy 
was  the  monarchical  principle  based  and  if  he  followed  this 
consistently  the  founders  guaranteed  to  Louis  Philippe  the 
continuation  of  his  dynasty. 

But  it  must  not  be  supposed  that  the  government  enjoyed 
at  once  the  full  support  of  all  the  French.  Its  existence  de- 
pended only  upon  the  support  of  its  founders,  the  concessions 
of  a  moderate  opposition  and  the  toleration  of  the  extremists, 
many  of  whom  leaned  toward  Republicanism.  But  the  Re- 
publican's day  had  not  yet  come.8    In  the  meantime  there 

T  Other  alterations  concerned  the  franchise  enlarging  the  electorate, 
taxation,  the  age  of  voters,  deputies,  etc. 

8  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  even  the  people  seemed  to  realize  that 
Republicanism  was  not  yet  strong  enough  to  assert  itself.  One  con- 
temporary relates  the  following  anecdote  of  the  July  Days :    *'Un  de 


9 


remained  only  two  parties  really  significant,  the  "parti  du 
mouvement"  and  the  "parti  de  resistance,"  both  to  a  great 
extent  bourgeois. 

Upon  his  informal  enthronement  Louis  Philippe  found  him- 
self between  two  extremes  and  he  was  necessarily  hampered 
by  this  situation.  The  king,  as  the  choice  of  the  revolutionary 
and  conservative  element  alike,  was  unable  to  assume  any 
definite  attitude.  The  scene  at  the  Hotel  de  Ville  had  imposed 
on  him  the  duties  and  limitations  of  a  popular  monarch  while 
from  the  coalition  of  Conservatives  and  a  few  Progressives  he 
was  expected  to  employ  the  charter  only  to  what  they  judged 
would  be  a  reasonable  and  proper  extent.  Louis  Philippe  was, 
then,  the  people's  king  as  well  as  the  choice  of  a  partially 
aristocratic  body.  Guizot  and  de  Broglie  were  the  leaders  of 
the  "resistance'' ;  La  Fayette,  Laffitte  and  later  Thiers,  the 
leaders  of  the  movement.  And,  as  the  foundation  of  the  July 
Monarchy  was  due  to  a  compromise,  so  its  first  ministry  was 
to  serve  as  a  mean  between  the  two  parties.  It  was  from 
the  "resistance"  and  "mouvement,"  then,  that  the  king  selected 
the  members  of  his  cabinet.9 

As  might  easily  be  expected,  such  a  combination  was  not 
of  long  duration  and  was  a  very  unsatisfactory  affair  while 
it  did  last.  The  Ministry  divided  at  once  into  its  logical  fac- 
tions and  a  confused  state  of  affairs  prevailed  which  assured 
Europe  that  there  was  no  need  to  anticipate  any  immediate 
danger  from  the  revolutionary  government.    From  this  con- 

nos  amis  qui  est  alle  au  camp  de  Rambouillet  avec  des  ouvriers,  bivou- 
quait  pres  d'un  homme  du  peuple.  "Je  sais  bien"  dit  ce  dernier,  "que 
de  ce  que  nous  faisons  il  ne  nous  reviendra  rien  et  que  nous  n'en 
mourons  moins  de  faim  ou  a  l'hopital ;  mais  nous  l'avons  fait  pour  la 
patrie,  pour  vous,  tenez,"  ajoutait-il,  "qui  est  un  bourgeois  et  qui  en 
profiterez."  d'  Herbelot  a  Montalembert— 6  Aout  1830.  Lettres 
d'Herbelot. 
8  Dupin  de  l'Eure— Minister  of  Justice 
Comte  Gerard —         "       "  War 

de  Broglie —  "       u  Public  Instruction  and  Sects 

Guizot —  "       "  Interior 

Comte  Mole —  "      "  Foreign  Affairs 

Baron  Louis—  "      "  Finance 

Comte  Sebastiani —     "       "  Marine 

Laffitte,  C.  Perier,  Dupin  (Aine)  and  Beugnot— ministers  without 
portefolios.    (Lesur  Annaire  1830.) 


to 


dition  in  the  cabinet,  there  resulted  in  the  political  world  in 
France  a  veritable  anarchy — religious,  intellectual  and  politi- 
cal, for  no  one,  legislator,  elector  or  minister,  knew  his  power.10 
Thus  at  home  the  new  monarchy  had  but  a  confused  support. 
What  was  its  position  in  Europe? 

France  was  sure  of  England's  sympathies  alone.  The  key 
to  the  whole  situation  is  found  in  the  Russian  question.  For 
a  long  time  the  Tsar's  policy  had  been  to  convert  the  Black 
Sea  into  an  interior  lake,  to  hold  back  the  fleets  of  England 
and  France  in  the  Mediterranean,  and  finally  to  gain  the  con- 
trol of  Egypt,  Greece  and  the  Islands.  The  ultimate  end  of 
this  policy  was  to  obtain  the  English  possessions  in  India ;  this 
necessitated  the  occupation  of  the  Dardanelles.  Charles  X,  as 
one  of  the  restored  Bourbons,  had  felt  the  obligation  he  was 
under  to  Russia,  for  it  was  the  Emperor  Alexander  who  had 
been  foremost  in  negotiating  the  Restoration.  Then  too,  he 
had  the  Bourbons'  inherent  respect  for  Legitimacy.  It  was 
his  creed.  Hence  forgetful  of  England's  kindness  to  his 
brother,  he  was  inclined  to  allow  the  Russian  policy  to  pro- 
gress without  protest  on  his  part.  This  attitude,  in  turn, 
had  rapidly  alienated  England's  sympathies,  and  upon  the 
return  of  the  "premier  emigreV'  to  the  island  as  an  exile,  he 
was  coldly  received  and  overtures  were  made  to  the  July 
Monarchy.  This  change  in  events  could  not  but  displease 
the  Tsar,  a  displeasure  which  was  further  aggravated  by  the 
very  evident  sympathy  entertained  for  Poland  by  a  certain 
party  in  France.  We  find,  then,  a  gradual  rapprochement 
taking  place  between  England  and  France  as  opposed  to  Rus- 
sia. The  Tsar's  position,  however,  was  not  one  of  entire  isola- 
tion. For  Austria,  swayed  by  Metternich,  was  oblivious  to  the 
probable  outcome  of  the  Russian  policy  and  rather  inclined 
to  an  alliance,  particularly  since  she  was  already  harassed  by 
the  dangers  of  Prussian  ambition  and  the  progress  of  liberalism 
as  agitated  by  the  Carbonari  in  her  Italian  possessions.  Prussia 
was  too  well  occupied  with  rebellious  Rhine-  provinces,  and 

10  "L'anarchie  est  moins  dans  les  esprits  que  dans  les  pouvoirs;  il 
y  en  a  des  gens  qui  ne  savent  ce  qu"ils  veulent;  mais  a  la  lettre  personne 
ne  sait  ce  qu'il  peut."  Madame  Swetchine — Lettres.  12  November 
1830.  And  also  d'Herbelot  a  Montalembert,  22  Sept.  1830.  Lettres 
d'Herbelot. 


Spain  and  Portugal  with  difficult  questions  of  succession,  to 
be  much  concerned  in  French  affairs.  But  in  three  smaller 
territories,  to  the  north,  south  and  east  of  France  there  were 
people  watching  eagerly  the  progress  of  events  in  Paris,  people 
who  felt  that  their  very  life  depended  on  the  yes  or  no  of 
Louis  Philippe,  and  whose  hopes  were  centered  in  his  gov- 
ernment. These  countries  were  Belgium,  Italy  and  Poland, 
all  but  one  of  whom  were  to  hope  in  vain.  From  the  point 
of  view  of  external  affairs,  therefore,  the  situation  was  not 
bad.  Louis  Philippe  had  a  strong  ally  nearby,  and  was  to 
a  certain  extent  protected  from  the  Holy  Alliance  by  the 
unsafe  conditions  in  the  intervening  countries.  What  a  su- 
preme opportunity  there  was  for  proving  the  worth  of  a 
liberal  and  constitutional  monarchy!  But  this  was  not  to 
be  accomplished  for  in  France  itself  there  was  nothing  but 
a  hopeless  confusion  of  political  dissensions,  financial  un- 
certainty, and  an  overpowering  strain  of  personal  egotism,  all 
the  inevitable  consequences  of  forty-one  years  of  revolution. 
Thus  for  foreign  affairs  the  ministry  declared  "the  doctrine  of 
non-intervention,"  their  interpretation  of  which  was  a  veritable 
confession  of  the  nation's  weakness.  In  this  France  dis- 
claimed any  intention  of  intervening  in  behalf  of  the  liberal 
movements  in  Italy,  provided,  in  return,  no  foreign  interfer- 
ence should  take  place  along  her  frontier.  And,  for  internal 
safety's  sake  the  Ministry  of  Progressives  and  Doctrinaires 
had  to  call  to  their  support  and  enlarge  the  national  guard, 
in  former  times  a  noble  body  of  national  defense,  but  now 
transformed  into  an  army  of  merchants  and  business  men  who 
enlisted  to  defend  their  own  interests  and  not  to  protect  the 
liberties  of  France. 

"A  military  monarchy  is  not  a  very  enviable  form  of  gov- 
ernment for  those  over  whom  its  authority  is  exercised.  But 
a  military  democracy  is  perhaps  the  most  to  be  deprecated."11 
This  "military  democracy"  laid  the  foundation  of  a  bour- 
geois rule,  a  reign  of  petty  business  interests  in  France. 

So  the  first  ministry  accomplished  very  little,  and  what  they 
did  accomplish  was  not  for  the  future  good  of  France.  Never- 
theless there  ensued  shortly  afterwards  an  all  too  brief  period 

"For  an  opposite  view  v.  d'Herbelot  to  Montalembert  9  Oct.  1830. 
Lettres  d'Herbelot. 

12 


of  interest  in  national  affairs.  This  was  occasioned  by  the 
trial  of  the  ministers  of  Charles  X.  Republican  sentiment  had 
finally  asserted  itself  and  brought  the  ministers  to  trial,  but 
the  death  penalty  for  political  offenses  was  first  abolished. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  but  that  this  demand  for  justice  was 
brought  about  by  the  events  in  Belgium  and  by  the  examples 
of  the  revolutionaries  in  Brussels.  The  demands  for  immediate 
trial  became  so  pressing  that  the  Cabinet  was  forced  to  resign 
and  on  the  second  of  November  the  "parti  du  mouvement" 
came  into  power,  headed  by  Laffitte  and  Sebastiani.12  But 
this  party  brought  very  little  relief,  and,  despite  the  appearance 
of  liberalism  in  its  legislative  work,  the  results  proved  un- 
satisfactory. France  is  said  to  have  suffered  principally  be- 
cause of  two  policies  pursued  during  their  term  of  office.  The 
first  was  the  debasing  efforts  of  the  Cabinet  to  obtain  recog- 
nition for  Louis  Philippe,  and  the  second  the  passing  of  three 
laws  one  of  which,  it  is  asserted,  paralyzed  the  power  of  the 
people  in  the  commune  and  gave  the  "bourgeois  full  sway.13 
Thus,  while  the  Laffitte  Ministry  was  honest  and  of  one  accord 
in  its  political  professions,  it  was  none  the  less  incapable  of 
preventing  the  gain  of  selfish  interests  and  could  accomplish 
nothing  amid  the  confusing  array  of  contrary  political  opinions. 
This  condition,  unfortunately,  was  not  confined  to  the  realm 
of  politics,  it  extended  to  all  branches  of  thought  philosophical, 

12  Laffitte — President  of  Council.    Minister  of  Finance. 
Marechal  Maison — Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs. 
Dupont  (de  l'Eure) — Guard  of  the  Seals. 

Comte  Montalivet — Minister  of  the  Interior. 

Merillon — Minister  of  Public  Instruction  and  Sects. 

Marechal  Gerard — Minister  of  War. 

Comte  Sebastiani — Minister  of  Marine. 

Maison  shortly  afterwards  replaced  by  Sebastiani. 

Gerard  shortly  afterwards  replaced  by  Soult. 

Comte  d'Argent — Minister  of  Marine.    (Lesur  Annaire). 

13  "It  was,  in  fact,  during  this  period  that  there  was  established  by 
the  successive  abandonment  of  all  nations,  the  diplomatic  system  which 
tended  to  bring  France  down  to  the  rank  of  secondary  powers  in 
order  to  obtain  recognition  of  Louis  Philippe's  right  to  rule.  It  was 
also  during  this  time  that  by  the  law  on  municipalities  they  paralyzed 
with  the  same  blow  the  action  of  the  people  in  the  commune  and 
that  of  local  influence.  By  the  law  on  elections  it  possessed  itself 
exclusively  of  the  State."    L.  Blanc,  Hist.  I.  410. 


13 


social  and  religious.  The  result  of  such  confusion  was  fatal 
to  intellectual  as  well  as  political  progress. 

France  was  proud.    By  a  revolution  she  had  formed  a  new 
government ;  why  should  she  not,  by  an  intellectual  revolution, 
L.  Blanc     establish  a  new  system  of  philosophy,  or  economics,  a  new 

Hist,  I,  410         .  r-      a    pl  ,  , 

socialism  or  a  new  religion  r    She  was  possessed  by  the  same 
overweening-pride  that  had  ruled  her  in  the  first  and  great 
v.  Tasche-    Revolution.14    But  in  1830  this  pride  was  even  greater,  for 

reau  Reme  having  been  in  abevance  a  score  of  years,  it  now  rose  higher 
Retrospec-  *  ,         /.     .  •«  1  • 

tiVe  mto  the  realms  of  the  impossible,  more  venomous,  more  in- 
tolerant and  more  dangerous  than  in  the  old  time.  There 
was  again  revived,  under  a  slightly  different  form,  the  degen- 
teu^Xo10"-  erate  worship  of  Reason,  and  new  sects  appeared  calling  them- 
selves Christian  and  embracing  a  vast  and  compound  system 
of  political  science,  morals,  philosophy  and  religion.  They 
became  veritable  centers  of  violence  and  riots.  Among  these 
it  is  well  to  note  the  Society  of  the  People's  Friend,  which 
caused  the  sack  of  St.  Germain  l'Auxerrois,  the  Society  of 
the  Rights  of  Man,  interested  in  the  riots  of  1832  and  1834, 
and  the  two  Societies  of  the  "Families''  and  the  "Seasons," 
one  or  both  perhaps,  vitally  concerned  in  the  disturbances 
Simon"*  mcident  t0  the  ministerial  crises  of  1839- 1840.  The  most 
Oeuvres  peculiar  and  most  successful  because  of  its  leaders,  was  Saint 
principally  Simoni  sm.15  Originally  a  purely  economic  theory,  Saint 
Simonism  degenerated  into  a  form  of  religion  and  a  rule  of 
life.  Their  principles  were  based  on  two  time-worn  theories, 
the  rehabilitation  of  the  body  and  matter,  and  the  legitimacy 
of  pleasure  and  passion.  The  head  of  the  Saint  Simonians 
was  a  paradoxical  personage  of  a  pontifical  character — having 
two  persons  and  known  as  one.    He  or  they  taken  together 

14  Le  gout  et  le  peche  revolutionaire  par  excellence  c'est  le  gout 
et  le  peche  de  la  destruction,  pour  se  donner  l'orgeuilleux  plaisir  de  la 
creation.  Dans  les  temps  atteints  de  cette  maladie  rhomme  considere 
tout  ce  qui  existe  sous  ses  yeux,  le  passe  et  le  present,  comme  une 
matiere  inerte  dont  il  dispose  librement  et  qu'il  peut  manier  et  remanier 
pour  la  fagonner,  a  son  gre.  II  se  figure  qu'il  a  dans  l'esprit  des  idees 
completes  et  parfaites  qui  lui  donnent  sur  toute  chose  le  pouvoir  absolu 
et  du  nom  desquels  il  peut  a  tout  risque,  et  a  tout  prix  briser  ce  qui 
est,  pour  le  refaire  a  leur  image."    Guizot,  Memoirs  II.  21. 

19  Saint  Simon,  Enfantin,  Bazard  and  even  at  one  time  A.  Comte 
and  Proudhon. 


14 


were  called  the  "Pope."  But — upon  a  quarrel  between  the 
two  persons  of  the  "Pope"  who  happened  to  be  Enfantin 
and  Bazard,  the  sect  split  up  into  separate  factions  and  finally 
disappeared.  This  is  only  one  instance  of  the  existence  and 
end  of  countless  sects  in  which  individualism  seems  to  have 
run  riot.  In  addition  to  these  groups  there  were,  of  course, 
still  others  who  prided  themselves  on  professing  no  belief 
whatever.  They  comprised  for  the  most  part  a  struggling 
remnant  known  as  the  inheritors  of  the  Encyclopedists.  But 
even  they  in  their  turn,  felt  the  ground  tremble  under  their 
feet  and  saw  their  self-made  confidence  vanish.  Then,  feeling 
the  void  they  themselves  had  created  and  too  proud  to  return 
to  the  old  faith,  they  must  needs  construct  a  belief  of  their 
own  only  to  have  it  crumble  to  ruins  in  a  short  time.  This 
was  the  anarchy  of  belief  as  well  as  of  political  doctrine  in 
the  early  years  of  Louis  Philippe's  reign,  egotistical,  confused, 
illogical  and  of  human  fashioning. 

Amid  the  general  chaos  in  the  first  year  of  the  July  Mon- 
archy, Christianity  had  not  fared  much  better.  Only  with 
effort  had  the  Faith  been  enabled  to  survive  the  fall  of  the 
Restoration,  to  which  it  had  been  so  closely  and  so  wrongly 
allied.  Catholicism  existed  but  remained  unrecognized.  For 
the  first  time  in  centuries  a  king  of  France  had  not  been 
blessed  with  the  benediction  of  Rome.  And  had  Louis  Philippe 
desired  this  act,  he  could  not  have  asked  it,  for  in  public 
he  did  not  even  dare  mention  the  word  "Providence."  Re- 
ligion had  been  severed  from  Royalty,  and,  indeed,  from 
authority  as  well.  The  crosses  had  been  removed  from  the 
tribunes,  some  places  of  worship  had  been  officially  closed 
and  when  the  "church"  was  mentioned  it  was  nearly  always 
in  secrecy.  Even  the  priests  must  needs  be  careful  not  to 
appear  on  the  street  if  they  would  avoid  insults.  But  if  a 
priests  aroused  the  throngs  to  ridicule,  an  open  church  often 
excited  them  to  riot.  St.  Germain  de  l'Auxerrois  was  sacked, 
and  the  archbishop's  palace  pillaged,  in  the  presence,  it  is 
asserted,  of  a  member  of  the  king's  government.16  The  ex- 
planation of  all  these  events,  however,  is  not  so  difficult  as  it 
appears  at  first  sight.    About  the  same  time  that  the  above 

18  Thiers,  L.  Blanc,  Hist.  I,  394- 


IS 


atrocities  were  committed  Louis  Philippe  removed  the  fleurs 
de  lys  from  his  coaches.  In  the  relation  between  these  two 
events  is  found  the  secret  of  all  the  trouble.  In  all  probability, 
the  manifestations  of  hostility  to  the  church  shown  by  the 
Paris  throng  had  their  origin  in  a  political  rather  than  a  re- 
ligious prejudice.  By  the  Concordat  of  1801  the  church  had 
been  allied  to  the  governing  power.  The  Pope  himself  had 
seen  this  and  must  have  regretted  it,  for,  during  the  Restora- 
tion he  had  made  ceaseless  appeals  for  the  negotiation  of  a 
new  Concordat.  But,  all  this  had  been  of  no  avail,  and  the 
restored  Bourbons  had  made  the  church  in  France  the  instru- 
ment of  their  own  wishes  and  desires.  In  so  doing  they  had 
established  a  form  of  Gallicanism  that,  upheld  and  fostered 
by  the  "petite  £glise''  party,  had  resulted  greatly  to  their  own 
increase  of  power  but  had  been  fatal  to  the  good  name  of 
the  church  in  France.  When,  therefore,  the  government  of 
Charles  X  became  more  unpopular,  the  church,  now  almost  an 
integral  part  of  the  Restoration,  was  equally  despised,  and 
upon  the  fall  of  Charles  many,  unable  to  distinguish  the  great 
truths  and  the  real  virtue  lying  at  its  basis,  sought  to  make 
way  with  Catholicism  as  well.  It  was  indeed  a  terrible  punish- 
ment for  the  faith  that  many  of  the  men  of  1830  failed  to 
distinguish  Carlists  from  Catholics,  not  all  of  whom  had  joined 
in  the  selfish  and  foolish  desires  of  their  more  extreme  and 
reactionary  colleagues.  This,  then,  was  the  condition  of  the 
church  in  1830.  A  new  Jansenius  was  needed,  but  more,  a 
new  Arnauld,  a  Frenchman,  not  a  stranger,  who  knew  his 
people  and  his  country,  who  loved  them  both,  and  yet  loved 
above  all  his  church.  And  so  it  was  that  coming  out  from 
their  obscurity  at  La  Chesnaie,  where  they  had  laboured  and 
sent  out  from  time  to  time  messages  of  encouragement  to 
the  struggling  remnant  left  in  the  church,  a  small  group  headed 
by  the  abbe  de  La  Mennais,  set  out  for  Paris  to  begin  a 
new  work  for  which  they  had  prepared  themselves  with  care 
and  continuous  application. 

Robert  Felicite  de  La  Mennais  was  above  all  others,  the 
man  suited  to  appeal  to  those  hardened  patriots  of  the  July 
Revolution.  He  had  passed  through  just  such  experiences, 
just  such  vague  uncertainties  and  just  such  doubts  as  they 
had  undergone.    Born  in  Brittany  June  19,  1782,  La  Mennais 

16 


had  been  old  enough  to  witness  and  consider  in  all  its  signifi- 
cance the  last  years  of  the  earlier  period  in  the  French  Revolu- 
tion. The  Empire  and  Restoration  had  followed,  and  brought 
with  them  many  old  and  some  new  abuses.  The  first  found 
him  without  belief  but  the  Restoration  left  him  not  only  a 
convert  but  a  priest.  The  latter  step  had  been  a  difficult  one 
and  it  had  taken  place  only  after  a  severe  spiritual  experience.  v-  are~ 
All  the  influences  of  the  Revolution  had  thus  had  an  oppor-  Jeunesse  de 
tunity  to  play  and  leave  their  impress  upon  the  young  priest,  La  of""318' 
from  Rousseau,  with  whose  works  he  became  acquainted 
through  his  uncle,  Robert  des  Saudrais,  to  de  Bonald  and  Pas- 
cal, both  of  whom  his  interest  in  Chateaubriand's  "Le  Genie  du 
Christianisme"  led  him  to  read.  What  a  contrast  this  young 
priest  must  have  been  to  many  of  his  fellow-clergy,  for  the 
greater  part  much  older  than  he  and  so  embued  with  the 
importance  of  regaining  their  temporal  powers  that  they 
seemed  to  have  neglected  their  chief  priestly  function — that 
of  ministering  to  humanity.  From  the  very  day  of  his  ordina- 
tion La  Mennais  seems  to  have  perceived  this  evil  and  de- 
termined to  combat  and  resist  it.  It  will  be  remembered  that 
he  made  this  the  main  theme  of  his  first  work,  "Reflexions 
sur  Tfitat  de  Tfiglise  en  France  pendant  le  dixhuitieme  siecle, 
et  sur  sa  situation  acteuelle"  (1808),  and  in  future  years  La 
Mennais  did  not  relent  in  his  attack,  even  when  busied  with 
the  management  of  his  brother's  order  or  occupied  in  the 
instruction  of  youth.  It  was  in  1821  that  the  young  priest 
came  definitely  before  the  public  eye.  In  that  year  he  pub- 
lished an  "Essai  sur  1'IndirTerence  en  matiere  de  Religion." 
This  work  is  of  prime  importance,  for  it  predicted  the  author's 
future  career  and  it  contained  the  fundamentals  of  all  the 
themes  expounded  ten  years  later  in  "l'Avenir" ;  the  regenera- 
tion of  the  church  by  liberty  and  the  regeneration  of  mankind 
by  the  church  when  once  it  had  been  freed  from  its  faults. 
The  great  evil  of  the  church  and  people  is  a  spiritual  deadness. 
One  paragraph  alone  is  sufficient  to  make  this  clear: 

"The  century  the  most  seriously  endangered  is  not  one 
that  eagerly  pursues  error,  but  the  century  that  neglects  and 
disdains  the  Truth.    There  Ts  force  and  consequently  hope, 
when  you  see  violent  transports  of  passion  one  way  or  the  La  Mennais 
other;  but  when  all  movement  is  stopped,  when  the  pulse  \ndlpree7acCee, 

17 


has  ceased  to  beat,  when  the  cold  has  gained  the  heart,  what 
is  there  left  to  expect  but  a  rapid  and  inevitable  dissolution? 
You  may  try  to  hide  it  from  yourself  ;  society  in  Europe  is 
fast  approaching  this  fatal  end." 

With  this  hypothesis  La  Mennais  set  out  to  cure  society 
of  its  fatal  malady,  and  in  his  beginnings  he  displayed  remark- 
able prescience.  Realizing  that  the  hope  of  the  nation  lay  in 
its  youth,  in  the  coming  generation,  and  not  in  the  individual 
acts  of  one  man  alone,  he  gradually  gathered  around  him  a 
small  group  of  young  enthusiastic  spirits  into  whom  he  might 
inculcate  his  ideas,  the  embodiment  of  which  were  later  found 
in  the  motto  selected  for  Y Avenir — "Dieu  et  la  Liberte." 
In  this  group,  composed  for  the  greater  part  of  adherents 
to  the  liberal  romatic  youth  of  Paris,  Henri  Lacordaire  was  a 
prominent  member,  and  it  was  probably  this  future  priest  who 
persuaded  La  Mennais  to  convert  a  small  piece  of  family  prop- 
erty known  as  La  Chesnaie  into  a  sort  of  religious  community. 
The  plan  enjoyed  immediate  success  and  soon  people  came 
to  say  that  what  in  Paris  the  Romantic  School  was  for  Litera- 
ture, the  "ecole  Menaisienne"  at  La  Chesnaie  became  for  re- 
ligion.17 It  must  not  be  supposed,  however,  that  the  "school'' 
at  La  Chesnaie  was  an  entirely  isolated  factor  in  the  religious 
life  of  the  nation.  Even  before  its  founding  La  Mennais 
had  established  relations  in  Paris  that  soon  were  brought  into 
close  connection  with  La  Chesnaie,  and  as  the  fame  and  popu- 
larity of  his  books  increased,  he  was  forced  to  make  more 
frequent  journeys  to  Paris  in  order  to  consult  his  publishers. 
While  in  the  Capitol  he  was  accustomed  to  visit  the  home  of 
his  old  friend  the  abbe  de  Salinis.  It  was  there  that  La 
Mennais  first  met  Abbe  Gerbet  to  whom  the  project  of  the 
"Memorial  Catholique"  had  just  been  confided,  Rohrbacher 
even  at  that  time  writing  his  monumental  history  of  the 
church,  Goesset,  de  Bonald  and  Eugene  Bore  famous  orientalist, 

17  Tandisque  le  pretre  s'appliquait  a  orienter  et  a  maintenir  dans  un 
sens  chretien  le  mouvement  romantiqje,  le  poete  s'efforca  de  con- 
querir  la  jeune  ecole  catholique  a  sa  reforme  litteraire :  Sainte-Beuve  les 
seconda  Tun  et  l'autre,  bien  qu'il  eut  peutetre  autant  de  scepticisme 
en  litterature  qu'en  religion.  It  mit  a  profit  ses  relations  avec  des 
menaisiens  pour  leur  precher  le  romanticisme,  et  il  ne  le  precha  pas 
sans  succes.   La  Mennais  se  laissa  gagner."   Boutard  II.  93- 

18 


editor  of  the  "Journal  Asiatique"  and  later  superior  of  the 
Order  of  the  Mission.  The  Salon  of  the  abbe  de  Salinis  thus 
became  the  cradle  of  the  "ecole  Menaisienne,"  and  whenever 
the  solitary  priest  of  La  Chesnaie  came  to  the  Capitol  the 
abbe's  home  was  crowded  with  friends  and  admirers,  or  others 
seeking  introduction  to  this  man  who  dared  advocate  views 
which  they  held  but  failed  to  express. 

In  addition  to  the  clergy  La  Mennais  had  many  friends 
among  the  laity  and  they  too  flocked  to  the  rendezvous  that 
was  now  become  the  nucleus  of  a  new  Liberal  Catholic 
Party.  Among  them  were  found  such  men  as  Foisset,  Leon 
Bore,  the  brother  of  Eugene  Bore  and  equally  talented,  de 
Cazales,  de  Carne  a  future  champion  of  religious  liberty  in 
the  chambers,  Alphonse  d'Herbelot  at  first  an  interested  ob- 
server and  then  a  convert,  and  Sainte-Beuve  also  a  recent 
convert.18  Even  from  this  brief  summary  it  may  be  clearly 
seen  how  the  ideas  of  the  young  reformer  had  spread  and 
were  beginning  to  dominate  a  certain  group  of  the  Romantic 
School  in  Paris.  But,  La  Mennais'  ideas  had  gone  still  further, 
they  had  even  permeated  the  reactionary  clergy.  This  fact 
alarmed  the  more  conservative  of  that  body  and,  through  the 
exertion  of  their  influence  La  Mennais  and  his  principles  soon 
became  a  source  of  constant  worry  to  the  government  and  to 
Rome  as  well.  Up  to  1828,  however,  La  Mennais  had  not 
been  regarded  as  a  controversialist,  but  beginning  with  that 
year  he  entered  upon  the  field  he  was  not  to  leave  until  his 
defeat.  In  all  probably  it  was  the  July  Ordinances  that 
aroused  him.  To  the  utter  astonishment  of  all  the  Liberal 
Catholics  the  Pope  ordered  them  to  submit  to  Charles  X's 
humiliating  decrees.  This  was  too  much  for  the  hot-headed 
Breton  priest. 

"I  do  not  believe/'  he  wrote,  "that  for  centuries  so  great 
a  scandal  has  been  known ;  and  how  fatal  the  results  may 
be!  Rome,  Rome,  what  are  you  doing?  What  has  become  of 
that  voice  that  in  the  old  time  sustained  the  feeble  and  aroused 
the  negligent?  That  voice  that  has  been  accustomed  to  cir- 
cumvent the  world,  giving  to  all  in  times  of  danger,  the  courage 
to  fight  or  to  die.    To-day  they  can  only  say:  'Submit.'  If 

18  V.  G.  M.  Harper— Sainte-Beuve.  66. 


19 


E.  Forgues,  our  fall  comes  from  the  source  whence  we  ought  to  expect 
2oOct?Srite8  our  salvation,  what  can  we  do  but  obey  the  words  of  the 
prophet,  who  said :  'Elongavi  fugiens,  et  mansi  in  solitudine.' " 
From  this  time  dates  La  Mennais'  conversion  to  the  belief 
in  the  absolute  necessity  of  the  church's  entire  independence 
and  separation  from  the  state.  He  now  became  an  Ultra- 
montane but  in  an  entirely  different  sense  from  the  generally 
accepted  meaning  of  that  term.  He  desired  Rome  to  throw 
off  all  secular  interests,  and  to  become  thoroughly  spiritualized. 
This  done,  he  advocated  complete  subjugation  to  the  will  of 
the  Pope.  This  feeling  he  expressed  in  the  last  works  he 
published  before  the  July  Revolution:  two  letters  to  the 
Archbishop  of  Paris,  one  of  which  was  condemned,  and  a 
work  entitled  "Des  Progres  de  la  Revolution  et  de  la  guerre 
contre  lfiglise."  These  works  decided  Le  Mennais'  future. 
The  Conservative  Party,  the  largest  and  most  strongly  Gallican, 
beheld  in  him  a  dangerous  Progressive  and  Ultramontane  of 
and  entirely  new  stamp,  while  his  timid  followers  looked  on 
aghast.  In  a  letter  written  to  a  friend  in  May,  1829,  a  little 
over  a  year  before  his  entrance  into  public  life,  La  Mennais 
describes  his  position  in  a  striking  manner. 

"When  I  consider  the  astonishing  phenomenon  that  the 
present  offers  to  us,  I  have  difficulty  in  finding  sufficient  per- 
sonal strength  to  console  myself  for  having  broken  the  silence 
that  many  have  kept  so  happily  for  their  own  welfare.  The 
church  was  there,  alone  in  the  arena,  given  over  to  the  beasts 
and  gladiators :  I  felt  the  desire  to  fight  for  her,  to  defend 
her  with  my  own  weakness.  Immediately  bishops  and  priests 
ran  to  watch  the  spectacle,  their  pockets  filled  with  stones. 
They  sat  down  and  it  became  a  contest  to  see  who,  from  the 
height  of  their  comfortable  seats  where  they  reclined  at  ease, 
could  hit  with  greatest  accuracy  the  misguided  and  daring 
fellow  who  had  exposed  himself  to  the  teeth  of  the  bears 
and  tigers,  without  authorization ;  these  same  people  who  play 
the  game  witih  such  skill,  become  irritated  when  his  actions 

E  Forgues,  are  n0|.  conformable  to  their  desires ;  they  would  not  have 

Corresp.  .  J 

22  Mai  1829  done  as  he  has,  and  the  stone  arrives  to  prove  it  to  him." 

This  was  the  encouragement  La  Mennais  received  from  the 

church  whose  miserable  condition  has  been  described.  Upon 

his  very  first  entrance  on  the  field  those  blind  ecclesiastics 

20 


attacked  the  man  who,  for  the  salvation  of  humanity  and  the 
church,  sought  to  make  them  distinguish  real  religion  from 
an  affair  of  politics,  and  an  ideal  and  logical  order  in  the  church 
from  a  condition  of  flagrant  disorder  and  abuse.  It  now 
remains  to  see  how  he  and  his  school  fared  under  another 
regime  whose  head  had  cried  aloud :  "La  Charte  sera  desormais 
une  verite." 


21 


CHAPTER  II 


LOUIS  PHILIPPE  AND  LA  MENNAIS 

During  the  nineteenth  century,  the  Liberal  Roman  Cath- 
olics sprung  from  the  school  of  La  Mennais,  exerted  a  con- 
siderable influence  in  questions  of  internal  and  external 
politics  in  France.  This  influence  dates  from  the  Charter 
of  1830  and  outlasts  the  July  Monarchy.  Those  eighteen 
years  witnessed  but  the  beginnings  of  a  great  movement 
which  seemed  at  first  to  have  culminated  in  the  Law  of 
Separation  in  1905,  but  which,  many  believe,  has  not  yet 
reached  its  end.  Like  all  such  movements,  the  early  period 
(1830-1848)  to  which  our  study  is  confined,  falls  into  two 
divisions,  the  "epoque  critique''  and  the  "epoque  organique" — 
to  borrow  an  expression  from  the  Saint  Simonians.  The  first 
half  of  the  reign  of  Louis  Philippe,  then,  is  the  formative 
period  when  the  movement  centered  about  one  principal  figure 
the  Abbe  de  La  Mennais,  and  when  its  action  was  diffused 
and  uncertain,  seeking  a  point  d'appui.  In  1840,  in  turn, 
a  change  seems  to  have  come  over  it,  transforming  it  into  a 
more  reasonable  and  logical  agitation  for  one  definite  object — 
and  that,  the  fulfilment  of  one  article  of  the  Charter — the 
69th — by  which  Liberty  of  Instruction  was  guaranteed.  It 
was  then  that  the  Liberal  Catholics  exerted  a  positive  influence. 
From  1840  begins,  then,  the  "epoque  organique,"  a  period 
lasting  even  to  our  own  day  and  full  of  interest  and  import 
to  the  student  of  modern  French  history.  But  it  would  be 
quite  impossible  to  take  up  a  study  of  the  "epoque  organique" 
without  a  careful  consideration  of  the  earlier  and  more  form- 
ative agitation,  for  in  the  latter  are  found  the  fundamentals 
and  most  of  the  origins  of  the  later  period.  Events  led  La 
Mennais  and  his  group  to  make  the  first  effort  and  Montalem- 
bert  and  Lacordaire  to  profit  by  their  first  experience  and 
succeed  in  their  second  attempt.  It  is,  however,  a  curiously 
ironic  comment  on  the  short  sightedness  of  human  nature  that, 


22 


at  the  time  of  success,  when  these  two  leaders  were  at  the 
zenith  of  their  activity  the  Liberal  Catholics  seemed  loath  to 
acknowledge  their  origin.  One  of  them,  probably  Louis 
Veuillot,  wrote : 

"The  history  of  ecclesiastical  opposition  in  France  may  be 
divided  into  three  situations :  the  first  the  resistance  of  priests 
and  bishops,  in  1811,  to  the  imperial  government,  the  second 
the  declaration  of  the  French  episcopacy  in  1828  to  the  July 
Ordinances,  and  the  third  the  protest  of  the  bishops  in  1841 
to  the  Monopole  Universitaire  and  the  proposed  laws  on 
secondary  instruction.  About  these  three  principal  events 
center  all  accessory  questions ;  the  arena  opened  at  these  three 
periods  was  filled  with  a  crowd  of  'petits  combats  partiels' ; 
but  all  the  efforts  from  one  side  or  from  the  other  are  centered 
in  these  three  solemn  debates." 

And  so  they  would  place  the  great  effort  of  La  Mennais — 
the  founder  of  their  own  school,  in  the  classification  of 
"petis  combats  partiels" !  Happily  Time,  more  just,  has  ac- 
knowledged the  fault  and  given  the  credit  where  it  is  due. 

The  church,  after  the  Revolution  of  1830,  presented  a 
curious  paradox. 

"Je  ne  sais  ou  nous  abouterons,  mais  vraiment  le  catholicisme 
est  bien  malade  et  ne  sait  qui  le  relevera." 

So  one  of  those  interested  in  the  "ecole  menaisienne"  had 
written  shortly  before  the  fall  of  the  Restoration.  This  may 
be  said  to  describe  the  condition  of  the  church  a  year  later 
when  the  clergy  seemed  stricken  with  a  hopeless  apathy  and 
civil  death.1  But  this  appearance  was  a  curious  one  for  it 
did  not  represent  the  true  state  of  affairs.  Legally,  or  from 
the  point  of  view  of  the  Constitution,  their  condition  was 
much  happier.  For,  the  Charter  of  1830,  while  declaring  that 
the  state  did  not  profess  any  specified  religion,  allowed  the 
people  a  free  choice  and  provided  that  all  clergymen  should 
be  paid  from  the  public  treasury.2    Furthermore,  by  the  pro- 

1  "Le  Clerge  est  frappe  d'une  sorte  de  mort  civile.''  Ami  la  Religion 
et  du  roi.    12  Juillet  1831. 

s"Art.  5.  Chacun  professe  sa  religion  avec  une  egale  liberte  et 
obtient  pour  son  culte  une  egale  protection. 

Art.  6.  Les  Ministres  de  la  religion  Catholique,  apostolique  and 
romaine  professee  par  la  majorite  des  frangais  et  ceux  des  autres  cultes 
Chretiens  recoivent  des  traitements  du  Tresor."   Charter  of  1830. 

23 


L'Univers, 
15  Aout, 
1846 


d'Herbelot 
to  Monta- 

lembert, 
1  Aout,  1829 


L.  Veuillot, 
"Rome  et 
Lorette,"  I, 
39 

Debidour, 
"E  et  E," 
414-419 
Thureau 
Danguin, 
Hist.,  I,  246, 
7 


mise  of  a  new  law,  liberty  of  instruction  was  guaranteed.3 
Despite  these  facts,  however,  the  position  of  the  clergy  and 
the  state  of  religion  in  France  were  not  so  good  as  might 
have  been  expected.  To  explain  such  a  state  of  affairs  would 
necessitate  a  careful  review  of  the  preceding  thirty-one  years. 
In  brief  this  condition  arose  from  two  main  causes.  The  first 
cause  was  antecedent  to  the  entire  situation  and  lay  in  the 
fact  that  the  Concordat  of  1801  and  the  Organic  Articles  were 
still  in  force  and  restricted,  to  some  extent,  whatever  liberties 
the  Charter  might  have  promised,  while  the  second  cause  was 
the  attitude  of  the  new  government  and  the  people's  response 
to  it. 

The  early  legislation  of  the  chambers  under  the  July  Mon- 
archy indicated  what  would  be  its  attitude  to  religion.  In 
politics  they  had  demanded  and  successfully  effected  a  sub- 
ordination of  all  powers  to  bourgeois  interest.  For  religion, 
the}'  were  to  act  the  same  way.  As  the  Concordat  of  180 1 
had  been  a  protest  against  the  possibility  of  the  rise  of  reac- 
tionary church  principles,  so  the  early  religious  policy  of  the 
Bourgeois  Monarchy  was  intended  to  serve  as  a  counteraction 
against  the  "dangerous  doctrine  of  theocracy"  (as  they  con- 
sidered it)  advocated  by.  the  young  Catholics  through  their 
leader,  La  Mennais.  The  one  desire  of  the  legislature  at  that 
moment  was  moderation,  and,  too  confident  in  their  own  ability 
to  create  institutions,  they  sought  to  establish  in  the  Church 
what,  it  was  believed,  would  prove  "a  moderate  and  reasonable 
faith."  The  Church,  then,  was  in  no  immediate  danger  of 
interference  on  the  part  of  the  chambers ;  both  houses  only 
sought  to  establish  that  very  state  of  indifference  which  La 
Mennais  would  have  abolished. 

The  ministers,  however,  were  in  a  still  less  certain  position. 
Divided  as  they  were  between  "mouvement"  and  "resistance" 
they  could  not  arrive  at  any  definite  decision,  could  not  carry 
out  any  of  the  liberties  guaranteed  by  the  Charter,  and  soon 
initiated  that  policy  of  promising  and  failing  to  fulfill  their 

3  "Art.  6.  The  following  subjects  shall  be  provided  for  successively 
by  separate  laws  within  the  shortest  possible  space  of  time. 


8th  Public  Instruction  and  the  Liberty  of  Teaching."  Charter  of 
1830. 


-'4 


promises  that  was  to  end  in  becoming  a  principal  cause  of  the 
downfall  of  Louis  Philippe.  It  would  have  been  better  had 
they  heeded  the  words  of  more  than  one  prophet  who  took 
the  trouble  to  warn  them.4  The  attitude  of  the  king,  in  turn, 
was  equally  curious,  and  as  time  went  on  his  personal  feelings 
in  the  matter  of  religion  became  more  difficult  to  explain  and 
less  creditable.  During  the  early  period  he  maintained 
a  discreet  silence.  Louis  Philippe  was,  perhaps,  afraid  of 
the  Church  questions,  and  in  this  he  was  not  so  unreasonable 
as  it  might  appear  at  first  glance.  A  divided  Church  harassed 
him  on  both  sides.  One  wing  the  Gallicans,  remnants  of 
the  "petite  eglise"  or  "parti  pretre"  held  decidedly  strong 
legitimist  sympathies,  while  in  the  other  faction  La  Mennais  and 
his  group  were  beginning  to  attract  attention  and  to  betray 
every  day  more  unmistakable  signs  of  republican  tendencies. 
"Better  not  put  your  finger  in  church  affairs.    You  will  never  Debidour, 

F  et  F  A2.' 

get  it  out  again.  It  will  stay  there."  the  king  is  said  to  ^  ec  '  ^ 
have  remarked. 

Among  the  French  in  general  the  attitude  to  Catholicism 
may  be  summed  up  in  three  categories ;  the  faithful,  the  in- 
different and  the  hostile.  The  former  comprised  the  great 
majority  of  the  lower  class  known  as  the  "people,"  and  also 
a  number  of  the  nobility,  together  with  an  occasional  bourgeois. 
The  people  believed  in  it,  the  nobles,  for  the  most  part,  prac- 
ticed it  as  both  a  political  and  a  religious  creed,  while  the 
few  bourgeois  who  accepted  Catholic  principles  generally  did 
so  in  a  sincerely  reverent  spirit.  The  second  class,  the  indiff- 
erent, held  that  some  sort  of  a  religion  was  necessary  for  the 
lower  classes.  And  why  not  Catholicism?  Among  their  num- 
ber were  principally  the  members  of  the  Right  and  Left 
Centers,  and  a  few  nobles.  The  majority,  however,  came 
from  the  rich  bourgeois  class.    In  the  third  category,  are 

4  At  this  time  many  pamphlets  were  published  advising  the  new 
government  what  attitude  to  take  to  the  religious  problem.  As  a  type 
I  quote  the  following  paragraph : 

"Au  reste,  avant  de  terminer  ce  chapitre,  je  donnerai  un  dernier 
conseil  au  government :  c'est  de  ne  pas  opprimer  la  religion  consacree 
dans  la  charte ;  il  s'en  trouvera  bien.  S'il  en  etait  autrement,  de  grands 
malheurs  pourraient  venir  affliger  notre  patrie."  "Reflexions  d'un 
Royaliste."    Dolle  1831. 


25 


found  the  adherents  of  the  extreme  Left — for  the  most  part 
a  collection,  and  fairly  large  at  that,  of  the  discontented 
political  riff-raff.  They  were  all  violently  opposed  to  the 
Church  as  an  institution  and  as  a  creed,  and  soon  inaugurated 
a  disgusting  anti-clerical  campaign  by  launching  forth  a  flood 
of  "literature''  some  of  which  bore  such  choice  titles  as, 
"Histoire  scandaleuse,  politique,  anecdotique  et  bigote  du 
clerge  de  France/'  "Infamie  des  pretres  devoilee,"  "La  chemise 
de  Femme  et  Correspondance  Gallante  trouvee  dans  l'oratoire 
de  l'archeveche  de  Paris,"  "L'archeveque  de  Paris  accuse 
d'assassinat  sur  la  personne  de  soeur  Veronique,  pharmacienne 
de  St.  Cyr"  and  so  forth.5 

This  was  the  spirit  of  the  times  and  the  state  of  affairs 
when  La  Mennais  left  La  Chesnaie  and  came  to  Paris  in 
September,  1830.  He  did  not  come  this  time,  however,  to 
consult  his  publisher  nor  to  visit  the  branch  of  his  brother's 
order  in  the  rue  de  Vaugirard,  but  to  found  the  newspaper 
that  was  to  become  the  mouthpiece  of  the  Liberal  Roman 
Catholics.  For  some  time  negotiations  had  been  under  way. 
It  seems  that  immediately  after  the  July  Days  in  1830  M. 
Harel  du  Tancrel  conceived  the  idea  of  founding  a  paper 
which  would  force  the  government  to  live  up  to  the  Charter 
in  so  far  as  Roman  Catholic  Liberties  were  concerned.  He 
suggested  it  to  be  abbe  Gerbet  of  the  "Memorial  Catholique" 
and  the  latter  communicated  at  once  with  the  group  at  La 
Chesnaie.  La  Mennais  had  long  been  considering  the  starting 
of  a  newspaper  by  means  of  which  he  could  expound  his 
views  for  the  redemption  of  the  church  and  for  the  saving 
of  his  fellow-men  by  the  church  once  redeemed  and  raised  to 
its  former  state.    A  few  weeks  later  he  wrote  to  a  friend: 

"They  are  shortly  going  to  publish  here  a  newspaper,  the 
prospectus  of  which  you  must  have  received ;  it  will  appear 
the  fifteenth  of  October;  its  name  will  be  I'Avenir  and  its 
purpose  to  unite,  on  the  bases  of  liberty,  men  of  all  opinions 
attached  to  order;  this  attempt  which  circumstances  seem  to 
favour  wonderfully,  will  not  be  without  success,  I  believe. 

8  V.  Pamphlets  of  the  date  also.  "Ami  du  Peuple"  30th  Octobre  1830 
and  Janvier,  Fevrier  183 1. 

The  more  vulgar  theatres  produced  plays  entitled :  "Victimes  Cloi- 
trees,"  "Papesse  Jeanne,"  etc. 

26 


In  fact,  I  hope  much  good  will  come  of  it.  Among  us  there 
exists  already  a  great  group  of  liberals  who  are  weary  of 
anarchy  and  despotism  and  who  understand  that  the  oppres- 
sion of  one  party  by  another  is  not  liberty  but  tyranny;  these 
come  in  crowds  together  under  the  banner  of  I'Avenir;  the 
clergy  too  will  seek  protection  there.  Only  certain  royalists  Corres.  ed, 
are  holding:  off  and  among  them  even  there  are  many  whom  Forgues, 

•11      r  u,     »  29  SePt-' 

time  will  enlighten.  ^30 

The  editors  and  principal  contributors  of  the  new  journal 

were     to     be — La     Mennais,     Lacordaire,  Montalembert, 

who    joined    them    in    November    1830,  Rohrbacher,  de 

Coux,  Baade  of  Doellinger  School  in  Munich,  Count  Merode  Lejtres  .de  !a 
'  fe  '  Mennais  a 

and  Hartel  du  Tancrel  who  was  called  the  editor-in-chief.  Montalem- 

In  reality,  of  course,  La  Mennais  was  the  leader.   A  prospectus  Ed  Fugues 
brought  forth  many  subscriptions,  and  La  Mennais  was  much  8  Nov.  1830 
encouraged.      Perhaps,  however,  he  was  too  sanguine,  he 
had  failed  to  consider  his  enemies.   The  outlook  for  the  news- 
paper was  of  the  very  brightest,  its  board  possessed  talent  and 
it  was  announced  that  from  time  to  time  the  greatest  writers  p^/gues^i 
of  the  period  would  contribute.6  Sept.,  1830 

In  the  middle  of  October  the  first  number  of  I'Avenir  ap- 
peared, and  in  it  the  real  editor-in-chief,  La  Mennais,  did  not 
hesitate  to  expound  his  views : 

"If  you  sincerely  desire  religious  liberty,  liberty  of  edu- 
cation without  which  there  can  be  no  religious  liberty,  you 
are  one  of  us;  but  we  too  are  in  sympathy  with  you,  for  we 
desire  no  less  sincerely  the  liberty  of  the  press,  all  the  political 

"In  fact  many  famous  writers  did  contribute — among  the  most 
prominent  of  the  Romantic  School  we  note :  V.  Hugo — a  chapter — 
Xotre  Dame  de  Paris,  Lamartine,  Verse  and  Letters  to  Montalembert. 
V.  I'Avenir  20  Juillet  1831  and  numbers  for  December  and  January  1831. 

Thureau-Dangin  in  his  History  of  the  July  Monarchy  renders 
homage  to  the  talent  gathered  in  I'Avenir  in  the  following  eloquent 
terms:  "Apres  tout,  nul  journal  ne  reunissait  alors  des  ecrivains  d'un  tel 
talent.  C'etait  La  Mennais  avec  cette  langue  qui  faisait  de  lui  presque 
l'egal  de  M.  de  Chateaubriand  et  de  M.  de  Maistre,  avec  cette  vehe- 
mence sombre,  terrible,  qui  serait  a  la  fois  du  tribune  populaire,  et  du 
prophete  biblique ;  inflexible  dans  sa  dialectique,  amer  et  dedaigneux 
dans  son  ironie,  manquant  souvent  de  mesure  et  de  gout,  mais  n'en 
demeurant  pas  moins  Tun  des  rheteurs  les  plus  eclatants,  et  l'un  des 
plus  redoubtables  polemistes  de  ce  temps." 


27 


and  civil  liberties  compatible  with  the  maintenance  of  public 
VAvenir,  order." 

1 5  Oct.,  1830     Thus  at  the  very  outset)  aimost  from  the  opening  lines  of 
the  first  number  of  VAvenir,  it  is  evident  how  far  in  the 
brief  space  of  July  to  October,  La  Mennais'  party  of  Liberal 
Roman  Catholics  had  wandered  from  the  paths  of  the  Doc- 
trinaires with  whom  they  seemed  to  be  in  alliance  but  a  few 
months  before.    They  no  longer  demanded  a  mild  and  dis- 
creet following  of  the  Charter  but  a  fulfilment  "a  outrance." 
Republicanism,  therefore,  appeared  in  the  very  first  number 
of  VAvenir  and,  as  time  went  on  this  tendency  became  more 
evident.    Even  the  Republicans  failed,  however,  until  several 
months  later,  to  perceive  the  entirety  of  La  Mennais'  plan 
as  outlined  in  VAvenir/'    Liberty  to  the  editors  of  this  paper 
v.  VAvenir,  meant  a  firm  opposition  to  Gallicanism,  which  was  nothing 
Corresp 1  e?'  more  ni  their  eyes  than  the  cause  of  anarchy  in  the  spiritual 
Forgues  II,   world  and  despotism  in  the  political.    Moreover,  they  would 
tolerate  Louis  Philippe's  government  only  so  long  as  the 
Church  remained  independent  in  its  teaching,  its  government 
L.  Blanc     an<^  *ts  discipline.    This,  in  turn,  could  lead  to  nothing  else 
Hist.,  I,     than  an  abolition  of  the  Concordat  of  1801.    So  much  for  the 
Church  itself. 

Their  demands  for  civic  liberties  were  still  greater  and 
comprised  such  large  questions  as  the  liberty  of  education, 
both  school  and  university,  the  liberty  of  the  press  and  that 
of  association.  But  the  demands  of  VAvenir  did  not  end 
here,  they  extended  even  into  the  realms  of  diplomacy.  In 
this  matter  particularly,  "VAvenir"  found  itself  absolutely  in 
opposition  to  the  policy  of  the  government  as  set  forth  by 
the  two  ministers  of  the  Formation  period.  The  new  Catholics 
were  fundamentally  and  irrevocably  opposed  to  the  ministers' 
interpretation  of  the  doctrine  of  non-intervention,  and  they 
maintained  that  the  right  and  duty  of  a  powerful  and  liberal 
nation,  if  that  nation  be  truly  powerful  and  liberal,  was  to 
intervene  in  behalf  of  all  others  less  fortunate;  hence  VAvenir 's 
attitude  to  Belgium,  Poland,  Italy  and  Ireland.7 

"Catholics,  let  us  learn  to  demand,  to  defend  our  rights 

7  For  the  most  comprehensive  exposition  of  l'Avenir's  attitude  in  this 
respect,  V.  l'Avenir  21  Fevier  1831.    An  article  by  Montalembert. 


383 


which  are  the  rights  of  all  Frenchmen,  the  rights  of  every  man 

who  is  determined  not  to  bend  under  a  yoke  any  longer,  to 

refuse  all  kinds  of  servitude  no  matter  under  what  guise  it 

appears  or  with  what  name  it  is  cloaked.   A  man  is  free  when 

he  wants  to  be;  he  is  free  when  he  knows  how  to  unite  and 

fight  and  die  rather  than  cede  the  very  slightest  portion  of   J ^l[emrA 
.  •  ,  1  r      1  .  •  „         16  0ct->  l83i 

those  rights  that  are  alone  ot  value  to  human  existence. 

This  was  not  the  language  of  the  Moniteur,  the  Journal  des 
Dcbats,  nor  yet  of  Ami  de  la  Religion  et  lu  roi.  Such  a  pro- 
gramme could  appeal  only  to  the  most  ardent  of  the  Liberal 
Catholics  and  to  those  men  of  the  political  world  who  were  the 
most  extreme  Republicans.  What  a  contrast  to  the  language  of 
forty  and  more  years  before  when  another  liberal  Catholic 
sought  to  join  his  cause  to  that  of  the  Republicans  !8  Vast  is 
the  distance  between  1790  and  1830.  It  is  even  greater  than 
that  between  Gallican  principles  and  a  new  ultramontanism. 

"God  has  placed  the  only  real  remedy  in  the  law  of  the 
Gospel  destined  to  unite  men  by  a  fraternal  affection;  from 
this  it  results  that  all  live  in  each  and  each  live  in  all.  Real 
liberty  and  Christian  spirit  are  inseparable.  He  who  does  not 
love  his  brother  as  himself,  no  matter  what  his  opinions  and 
speculations  may  be,  contains  within  himself  a  grain  of  tyranny 
and  consequently  of  servitude.  Furthermore,  the  universal  and 
crying  need  of  liberty  today  is  to  our  eyes  a  certain  proof  that 
Christianity,  far  from  being  weakened,  is  really  more  power- 
ful than  ever.  For,  leaving  the  surface  of  society  where  a 
thousand  constraints  were  sapping  its  life  away,  it  has  gone 
down  to  the  very  basis  of  society  and  there  in  silence  it  is  ac- 
complishing a  work  that  is  just  now  commencing."9 

It  was  with  such  words  that  he  called  out  to  the  bishops : 
"Go,  like  the  twelve  fishermen,  and  recommence  the  conquest 
of  the  world." 

From  the  State,  I'Avenir  asked  but  little  assistance ;  they 
already  saw  its  weakness  in  the  vagueness  of  its  policy.10 
"I'Avenir  proposed  to  defend  the  Catholic  institution  (sys- 

8  Abbe  Gregoire  and  the  Civil  Constitution  of  the  Clergy. 

9  La  Mennais'  account  of  the  purpose  of  "I'Avenir,"  Affaires  de  Rome,. 
P-  34- 

10  C'est   ainsi   tres   certainement   qu'on   prolonge   les  revolutions." 
I'Avenir,  17  October  1830. 


29 


Affaires  de    tern)  languishing  and  persecuted  principally  by  those  very 
ome  4-0    p0wers  ^hat  afreet  to  call  themselves  its  protectors." 

But  to  do  this,  Christianity  as  a  whole,  not  only  the  bishops, 
must  go  back  to  the  primitive  Church  eighteen  centuries  in  the 
past,  and  La  Mennais  intended  VAvenir  to  show  them  the 
way : 

*'And  now  what  way  remained  for  her  to  become  what 
she  had  been  in  the  beginning,  to  recover  with  the  confidence 
of  the  masses  her  influence,  except  that  of  returning  to  the 
source,  of  identifying  her  interests,  as  much  as  possible,  in  the 
interests  of  humanity,  of  coming  to  the  assistance  of  its  needs, 
and  of  aiding  it  to  develop  in  all  its  phases  and  all  its  conse- 
quences applicable  at  that  time,  the  Christian  principle  of 
equality  before  the  law.  The  realization  of  this  principle  con- 
stitutes order  without  which  there  is  no  liberty,  and  liberty 

Affaires  de  without  which  there  is  no  law." 

Rome,  7 

Among  the  lower  clergy  such  a  philosophy  found  many  wil- 
ling hearers,  but  among  the  bishops  few,  for  the  majority 
of  the  higher  ecclesiastics  were  Legitimists  and  found  their 
opinions  reflected  in  the  pages  of  Ami  de  la  Religion  et  du 
rot.  Moreover,  La  Mennais  did  not  enjoy  the  favor  of  the 
Archbishop  of  Paris  who  had  already  had  occasion  to  condemn 
him  and  who  regretted  the  Bourbons.  The  Vatican,  in  turn, 
maintained  a  strict  silence,  doubtless  because  they  hoped  to 
obtain  a  repeal  of  the  Concordat.  Had  Pius  VIII  but  seen 
what  a  later  pontiff  saw ;  had  he  but  realized  that  a  Pope 
should  not  be  a  Regalist  if  he  would  be  independent  and  that 
despotisms  or  absolute  states  were  his  greatest  enemies ! 

Their  enemies — at  home — however,  were  not  long  silent, 

and  as  if  to  tempt  the  new  group  into  a  rash  statement  they 

Ami  de  la  conf ronted  them  at  once  with  a  difficult  problem.  The  coal- 
Rehgxon  et  #  r 

du  rot,  16-20  ition  of  Legitimists  and  Gallicans  asked  if  the  Church  could 

Oct,  1830  reaiiy  recognize  a  government  that  was  the  issue  of  a  revolu- 
tion. The  coalition  held,  of  course,  that  it  was  impossible. 
The  answer,  happily,  was  not  so  difficult  for  the  Liberal  Catho- 
VAvenir  ncs  as  their  interrogators  had  anticipated.  They  replied: 
17  Oct.,  1830  "Populus  facit  regem."  The  statement  of  his  opinion  marks 
the  first  point  of  departure  from  the  political  doctrines  of  the 
old  church  party.   The  Gallicans  could  not  tolerate  an  acknowl- 


30 


edgment  of  Louis  Philippe,  and  still  more  unpardonable  to 
their  eyes  were  the  republican  sympathies  of  the  new  Catho- 
lics.11 To  this  first  separation  from  the  Legitimist  branch  of 
the  Church  has  been  attributed  the  fall  of  the  first  movement, 
unfavourable  reports  of  which  preceded  La  Mennais  to  Rome 
and  followed  Lacordaire,  the  more  timid,  even  to  the  pulpit  of 
Notre  Dame.  But  time,  it  seems,  has  shown  that  this  answer 
was  not  the  most  important  of  several  causes. 

So  far,  the  activity  of  the  new  party  had  been  confined  en- 
tirely to  propaganda  in  VAvenir,  and  was  of  a  speculative 
nature  only,  but  it  was  not  long  before  they  were  called  upon  to 
test  their  theories.  The  Charter  of  1830  while  granting  liber- 
ties of  which  VAvenir  had  demanded  the  execution,  had 
also  made  stipulations  against  which  it  had  loudly  protested. 
Their  principal  objection  was  based  on  an  article  declaring  that 
''the  clergy  of  the  Catholic,  Apostolic  and  Roman  Religion, 
which  faith  is  professed  by  the  majority  of  the  French,  and 
the  clergy  of  other  denominations  as  well,  shall  receive  salaries 
from  the  public  treasury."  Upon  the  presentation  of  a  budget 
for  1,670.000,000  francs  by  M.  Laffitte,  great  opposition  was 
aroused.  The  Globe  and  its  satellites  protested  strongly  on 
the  ground  of  excessive  expenses.  Le  Mennais  and  his  school 
lent  their  voices  to  this  protest,  but  in  a  totally  different  sense ; 
they  objected  to  the  servitude  of  the  clergy  in  that  they  were 
paid  by  the  state.  At  the  same  time  the  king,  acting  upon  the 
Concordat,  appointed  two  bishops.  Here  was  the  opportunity 
for  the  Liberal  Catholics  to  enter  the  field.  Protests  became 
more  violent.  Alarmed  by  the  opposition  of  the  two  parties 
the  government  determined  on  a  show  of  force ;  La  Mennais 
and  Lacordaire  were  brought  before  the  tribunal  for  two  arti- 
cles they  had  published  in  VAvenir  apropos  of  the  budget 
and  the  nomination  of  the  bishops.12    As  usual,  this  display 


11  X'avoir  que  du  sucre  et  du  miel  pour  les  redacteurs  du  "Globe," 
par  exemple,  et  reserver  tout  son  fiel  contre  nous,  nous  prodiguer  les 
signes  de  mepris,  affecter  avec  nous  des  airs  de  hauteur;  de  tels  pro- 
cedes  conviennent — lis  a  des  ecrivains  qui  se  respectent  un  peu,  et  sur- 
tout  a  des  chretiens  et  a  des  pretres?"  Ami  de  La  Religion  et  du  roi. 
3  Fevrier  183 1. 

x"La  Mennais'  article  appeared  in  VAvenir  26  November  1830,  under 
the  title — "Oppression  des  Catholiques."    He  said,  in  part:     "Ou  le 


Thureau- 
Dangin, 
Hist..  II, 
293 


Charter, 
1830,  Art.  6 


3i 


of  determination  on  the  part  of  the  government  brought  it 
V.  London  little  credit  and  resulted  in  a  tacit  victory  for  the  accused. 
7eb.  "4**1831  Thus  the  first  persecution  of  I'Avenir  ended  in  a  gain,  for  it 

had  given  the  defendants  an  opportunity  to  express  publicly 

their  views. 

There  is  one  phase  of  the  affair,  however,  which  must  not 
be  overlooked.  As  has  been  noted,  the  Gallicans  were  offended 
by  the  language  of  VAvcnir,  and  in  their  account  of  the  trial 
they  inaugurated  a  policy  of  recrimination  against  the  new 
party,  attacking  it  not  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  monarchy 
or  their  own  political  opinions  but  from  that  of  the  Church 
and  orthodoxy  alone.  It  is  interesting  to  let  them  speak  for 
themselves : 

"One  phrase,  among  others,  surprises  us  in  this  plea  (of 
M.  Janvier)  :  here  it  is:  "M  de  la  Mennais  has  charged  me 
to  tell  you  that  for  fifteen  years  he  has  worked  to  regenerate 
Catholicism  and  to  give  it — under  a  new  guise  and  according  to 
the  new  progress — the  force  and  life  that  have  abandoned  it." 
If  we  had  only  read  this  sentence  in  the  Gazette  des  Tribunes 
we  could  have  believed  that  it  had  been  inexactly  reported ; 
but  it  exists  with  the  same  text  in  V  Avenir.  Furthermore,  M. 
de  la  Mennais  was  present  at  the  trial  and  did  not  protest 
against  the  use  of  this  expression.  It  is  therefore,  an  establish- 
ed fact  that  he  had  charged  his  lawyer  to  say  that  he  had  been 
working  for  fifteen  years  to  regenerate  Catholicism  and  that 
it  had  lost  its  force  and  life.  This  declaration  certainly  will 
not  displease  the  enemies  of  the  Church ;  they  accused  it  of 

pouvoir  ne  peut  pas  ou  il  ne  veut  pas,  en  ce  qui  nous  concerne,  etre 
fidele  a  ce  qu'il  a  promis.  S'il  ne  peut  pas  qu'est  ce  que  cette  moquerie 
de  souverainete,  ce  fantome  miserable  du  gouvernement,  et  qu'y  a-t-il 
entre  lui  et  nous?  II  est  a  notre  egard  comme  s'il  n'etait  pas,  et  il  ne 
nous  reste,  en  l'oubliant,  qu'a  nous  proteger  nous-memes. 

.  .  .  S'il  ne  veut  pas,  il  rompt  le  contrat  qui  nous  liait  e  lui,  condi- 
tion expresse  qu'il  tiendra  lui-meme  ses  engagements  envers  nous ; 
sinon  non."  Lacordaire's  article  had  appeared  the  day  before  and  was 
called  "Aux  fiveques  de  France,"  VAvcnir,  25  Xov.  1830.  These 
articles  had  a  bad  effect,  they  estranged  more  than  ever  the  Gallicans 
who  reported  the  matter  to  Rome.  Quite  a  correspondence  is  said  to 
have  passed  between  La  Mennais  and  Ventura  who  sought  to  extricate 
him  from  this  unfortunate  situation,  but  to  no  avail.   V.  Boutard  II.  225. 


having  degenerated  and  M.  de  la  Mennais  supports  them  in  de-  A]^xeV^xQl° 
claring  that  it  has  lost  its  life  and  its  force  and  that  he  is  striving    et  ^rol, 
to  bring  about  its  regeneration."  8  Fevrier, 

This  word  "regenerer"  employed  by  M.  Janvier  with  or 
without  the  defendant's  sanction  was  to  cost  La  Mennais  «Mjra« 
much.    It  was  repeated  in  the  Papal  Bull  which  was  later  Vos,"  Greg., 
directed  against  him.    This,  then,  was  the  influence  at  Rome  XVTI'g32U§'' 
of  YAmi  de  la  Religion  et  du  roi  and  its  adherents.  The 
following  year  held  another  such  victory  in  store  for  the  Liberal 
Catholics,  but  it  was  not  to  bring  with  it  such  unhappy  results. 

The  government,  in  its  turn,  gained  little  profit  from  the 
trial.   It  only  served  to  accentuate  more  than  ever  its  inherent 
weakness,  a  fact  which  was  made  all  the  more  evident  by  their 
attitude  in  regard  to  the  elections  of  a  new  Pope,  and  the  mem- 
orial service  for  Louis  XVI.   Well  might  others  compare  past 
glories  and  the  July  Monarchy;  the  comparison  was  not  flat- 
tering for  the  "Liberals"  of  1830!    Shortly  after  the  trial  an-  v.  London 
other  event  of  interest  to  the  Church  occurred,  the  sack  of  St.  ^  73^^1830 
Germain  de  l'Auxerrois.    As  has  been  previously  noted,  this  ibid.,  22  Jan. j 
was  probably  an  attempt  on  the  part  of  the  group  in  control  to  I^3i 
show  the  determination  of  the  government.  It  was,  too,  a  politi- 
cal recrimination  against  the  Church,  but  may  it  not  also 
have  been  an  apology  on  the  part  of  the  government  to  the 
bourgeois  for  its  manifest  weakness  in  December  and  Janu- 
ary?  By  many  parties  it  was  regarded  as  a  most  unfortunate 
affair.13  At  any  rate,  it  gave  Y  Avenir  the  opportunity  it  was 
waiting  for,  the  chance  to  make  a  definite  and  public  break 
with  the  July  Monarchy  and  the  Gallicans  as  well.    On  the 
morrow  of  the  outrage  the  following  article  appeared  in 
V  Avenir: 

"Catholics,  the  foolhardy  have  just  succeeded  in  compro- 
mising both  the  peace  of  the  country  and  your  own  just  cause, 
by  covering  with  the  cloak  of  religion  their  evil  designs  and 
perhaps  even  their  conspiracies.    They  have  attempted  to  in- 

13  A  propos  of  the  sack  Guizot  is  said  to  have  remarked :  "De  toutes 
les  orgies,  celles  de  Timpiete  revolutionaire  sont  les  pires,  car  c'est  la 
qu'eclate  la  revolte  des  ames  contre  leur  souverain.  Et  je  ne  sais  en 
verite,  les  quels  sont  les  plus  insenses  de  ceux  qui  s'y  jeterent  avec 
fureur,  ou  de  ceux  qui  sourirent  en  les  regardant."  Quoted  from  Bar- 
doux-Guizot  60. 


33 


augurate  civil  war  beside  a  tomb,  thus  profaning  prayer,  the 
temple,  the  sacrifice,  the  mysteries  of  God  and  of  death.  .  .  . 
Break,  therefore,  break  forever  with  men  whose  incorrigible 
ignorance  endangers  this  holy  religion,  who  sacrifice  their  God 
L'-p\'enir'  to  their  king,  and  who,  if  they  once  gain  the  upper  hand,  will 
1831  '  degrade  your  altars  until  they  are  nothing  more  than  mere 
thrones."14 

This  article  attacking  as  it  did,  both  the  Old  Church  party 
and  the  State,  produced  a  great  effect,  more,  perhaps,  than 
VAvenir  had  anticipated.  It  offended  all  conservatives,  and 
such  violent  words  were  again  unfortunate  for  so  noble  a 
movement.  Already  hated  by  the  Legitimists  VAvenir  had 
now  broken  whatever  ties  of  allegiance  it  may  have  had  with 
the  men  of  the  government  who  asserted  that  they  had  never 
placed  entire  faith  in  the  "ecole  menaisienne."  La  Mennais 
was  to  find  that  from  now  on  he  had  practically  all  of  con- 
servative or  even  moderate  opinion  against  him ;  the  govern- 
ment frightened  and  angered  at  the  tone  in  which  VAvenir 
had  spoken  of  the  throne,  the  Legitimists  overjoyed  at  the  false 

^iQ^vrier^  steP  °^  tne*r  riv3Lhls  and  many  of  the  Liberals  who  were  total- 
1831  ly  unable  to  understand  such  an  attitude.  His  political  enemies 
now  sought  to  discountenance  "the  Breton"  among  his  fellow 
clergy  and  superiors.    It  seems,  however,  that  La  Mennais 

^o^Fevrier^  was  not  tne  autnor  °f  this  article,  as  he  was  not  in  Paris  at 

1831       the  time.10  The  blame  fell,  none  the  less,  upon  the  leader  of 

the  group.   The  cause  of  the  Liberal  Roman  Catholics  was  not 

lost,  it  was  but  endangered ;  now,  they  must  fight  for  their  ex- 
lAvemr.      .  .   .  .     ,  11, 

29  Avril,     istence,  and  this  they  proceeded  to  do. 

^31  It  must  not  be  supposed,  however  that  this  small  enthusias- 

"V.  also  Ami  de  la  Religion  et  du  roi.  12  Fevrier  1831  and  numbers 
for  April  1831. 

Even  La  Mennais'  friends  at  Rome  were  alarmed  by  this  extreme 
language  and  they  urged  him  to  accede  to  the  warning  of  abbe  Ventura 
who  had  written  him  shortly  before :  "Votre  tort  devient  d'autant 
plus  grand  que  vous  paraissez  precher  la  Revolution  au  nom  de  la 
Religion."  Quoted  from  letter  published  in  Ami  dc  la  Religion  ct. 
du  roi.  10  Fevrier  183 1. 

"Commenting  on  this  attitude  they  referred  to  part  of  an  article 
they  had  published  before  and  claimed  it  was  justified.  V.  Ami  de  la 
Religion  et  du  roi.    10  Fevrier  1831. 

"It  has  been  ascribed  to  Montalembert.    Routard  IT.  262. 


34 


tic  group  in  the  Church  had  allowed  themselves  to  go  so  far 
without  at  least  an  attempt  to  obtain  papal  sanction  for  their 
ideas.    La  Mennais  himself  relates  that  on  the  second  day  of 
February,  183 1,  the  very  date  of  the  election  of  Gregory  XVI, 
the  editors  of  I'Avenir  somewhat  surprised  by  the  discussion 
their  actions  had  given  rise  to,  and  fearing  perhaps  that  they 
had  gone  too  far,  signed  an  exposition  of  their  doctrines.  The 
document  was  given  to  a  deputy  who,  in  turn,  presented  it  to 
Monsieur  Sebastiani.    The  Foreign  Minister  promised  to  see 
that  it  reached  the  Pope  through  a  diplomatic  channel.  For 
some  reason  or  other  the  exposition  was  not  given  to  Gregory  I'Avenir, 
XVI  at  this  time,  perhaps  because  of  the  serious  political  con-  ^  N°ge™~ 
dition  existing  in  the  Papal  States.    The  unfortunate  part  of  ' 
the  entire  affair,  however,  is  the  fact  that  the  government  failed 
to  notify  La  Mennais  of  its  decision  not  to  transmit  the  docu- 
ment and  it  was  not  until  much  later  that  the  editors  of  I'Avenir 
discovered  the  false  position  in  which  they  had  been  placed. 
They  continued  the  publication,  supposing  naturally  by  the 
Pope's  silence  and  failure  to  reply,  that  they  had  his  tacit  ap- 
proval.  When  they  finally  did  discover  the  whole  truth  of  the 
matter,  they  were  already  in  hard  straits.    Well  might  they  I'Avenir, 
question  if  the  government  had  not  done  this  purposely!  The 
above  incident  should  be  held  in  mind  throughout  the  follow- 
ing account  of  subsequent  events,  for  it  throws  an  entirely  Memoire 
different  light  on  the  later  actions  of  La  Mennais  and  his  party,  presentee 
Furthermore,  it  is  an  important  fact  which  many  critics  of  this  r*"n  Spontif 
period  have  failed  to  take  into  consideration.  Greg  XVI, 

At  this  time,  ignorant  of  the  fate  which  others  seemed  to  be  ^cteurs  ^e 
holding  in  store  for  them,  the  Liberal  Catholics  felt  the  time  I'Avenir,  etc. 
had  come  to  put  into  practice  their  professed  doctrines,  and  to 
fight  for  their  own  justification.  Happily  the  means  were  not 
lacking.  As  if  to  prepare  for  such  a  contingency  cautious  and 
less  impulsive  hands  had  already  molded  the  foundations  of 
a  great  bulwark,  the  "Agence  generale  pour  la  defense  de  la 
liberte  religieuse."  The  organization  of  such  an  institution 
had  been  principally  the  work  of  Montalembert,  but  here 
again  he  had  turned  to  La  Mennais  for  the  first  impulse.  In 
1828  La  Mennais  had  founded  the  "Association,  pour  la 
defence  de  la  Religion  Catholique."   This  association  had  been 


35 


Boutard, 
182 


II. 


Thureau 
Dangin, 
Hist.  Mon., 

Juillet, 
II,  293,  et 
seq. 


Lettres  de 
La  Menna 
a  Montalem- 
bert,  Ed. 
Forgues 
Lettre  IV 


V.  Charter 
of  1830,  Art. 
69 


Boutard, 
II,  171 


dissolved  at  the  time  of  the  July  Revolution,  and,  using  it 
as  a  basis,  Montalembert  constructed  a  new  society  of 
greater  proportions,  more  ambitious,  and  in  the  end,  more 
effective. 

"It  was  a  question  of  meeting  together  not  to  pray,  nor 
yet  to  discuss,  but  rather  to  act;  and  to  work  for  the  defense 
not  only  of  their  own  faith,  but  for  every  religious  liberty." 

At  first  the  sole  purpose  of  the  "Agence"  was  to  provide 
legal  assistance  to  Catholics  prosecuted  under  laws  restricting 
their  religious  liberties,  but  later,  through  the  influence  of 
Montalembert,  it  extended  its  field  of  interest.  Its  organiza- 
tion was  officially  announced  on  the  eighteenth  of  November, 
1830 — just  one  month  after  the  founding  of  VAvenir.  In 
speaking  of  it  La  Mennais  had  said : 

"Nous  avons  depose  dans  la  societe  des  germes  qui  ne 
seraient  pas  steriles ;  le  temps  les  developpera  et  les  devel- 
oppera  d'autant  plus  que  les  passions  et  les  prejuges  qui  nous 
ont  combatv  ameneront  plus  de  calamities." 

By  its  very  name  the  "Agence"  was  a  demand  for  another 
liberty  promised  by  the  Charter  and  until  now  withheld  by  a 
timorous  and  inefficient  ministry — the  right  of  association. 
But  the  "Agence"  aimed  not  only  at  the  fulfilment  of  this 
right  and  the  defense  of  religious  privilege;  it  would  also  aid 
and  encourage  the  faithful,  and  strengthen  the  hearts  of  those 
uncertain  through  the  profession  of  a  liberalism  more  or  less 
anti-religious.  It  was  governed  by  a  Council  of  nine  directors, 
Montalembert  being  the  most  prominent,  and  over  which 
La  Mennais,  as  Chairman  presided.  The  purpose  of 
"L'Agence"  as  set  forth  in  VAvenir  was  threefold ;  the  bring- 
ing to  trial  of  all  cases  involving  the  liberty  of  the  clergy, 
the  support  of  all  schools  of  all  grades  against  any  attempted 
restriction  of  the  privilege  of  liberty  of  instruction  as  promised 
in  the  Charter  and  the  maintenance  of  the  right  of  association.17 


siastiques  par  poursuites  devant  les  chambres  et  devant  les  tribunaux. 

2.  Le  soutien  de  tout  establissement  destruction  primaire,  secondaire, 
et  Universitaire,  contre  tous  les  actes  arbitaires,  attentoires  a  la  liberte 
de  renseignement,  sans  laquelle  il  n'y  avait  ni  charte  ni  religion. 

3.  Le  maintien  du  droit  qui  appelaient  a  tous  les  francais  de  s'unir 
pour  prier,  pour  etudier  ou  pour  obtenir  toute  autre  fin  legitime 

36 


Such  was  the  programme  of  the  "Agence."    How  then  was  it 
received  by  its  enemies? 

'There  has  recently  been  formed  an  "Agence  pour  la  defense 
de  la  liberte  religieuse,"  it  has  sent  broadcast  its  prospectus, 
it  is  strongly  recommended  in  a  newspaper,  it  has  selected 
legal  defenders,  and  it  promises  to  take  care  of  the  cases  of 
harassed  priests;  but  that  is  much  easier  in  theory  than  in 
practice.  No  matter  how  great  its  zeal  the  "Agence"'  will 
have  to  surmount  too  many  difficulties  to  arrive  easily  at  its 
goal.  Would  any  association,  no  matter  if  it  be  strong  and 
more  affluent  than  we  can  believe  it  to  be,  have  any  effect 
whatever  against  a  carefully  organized  policy  of  the  adminis- 
tration, against  the  orders  of  a  Cabinet  not  too  kindly  disposed ; 
the  efforts  of  the  irreligious  party  and  the  invectives  of  its 
newspapers  ?" 

This,  in  part,  was  the  opinion  of  its  most  hostile  adversary. 
But,  this  criticism  -of  VAvenir  and  the  "Agence"  for  they  Vidurox, 
were,  in  reality,  one  and  the  same,  is  only  a  confession  of  Avril  183 1 
the  moral  weakness  characteristic  of  the  old  party.  More- 
over, such  criticism  could  not  have  any  other  effect  than  to 
encourage  the  young  Catholics,  and  soon  after  its  organization 
the  "Agence"  was  well  on  the  way  to  accomplish  its  aim. 

Their  first  interference  was  in  behalf  of  two  persecuted 
orders  in  the  provinces.  In  both  cases  they  obtained  a  moderate    y  D  b  • 
success.18    Encouraged  by  even  this  slight  evidence  of  their   dour,  "E  et 
influence  they  developed  their  plans  still  further,  and  formed    E>"  4^-3 
an  affiliation  of  all  similar  organizations  in  France.  Three 
directors  were  given  various  localities  to  supervise;  Montal- 
embert  the  Midi,  de  Coux  the  center  and  east,  and  Lacordaire 
the  northwest  of  France.    But  this  first  act  of  affiliation  is  not 
the  principal  glory  of  the  "Agence."    Its  greatest  achievement 


Ami  de  la 
Religion 


egalement  avantageuse  a  la  religion,  aux  pauvres  et  a  la  civilization" 
V.  VAvenir,  Xos.  18-19,  November  1830. 

18  A  republican  commander  at  Aix  had  given  the  order  to  arrest  every 
person  garbed  in  a  monk's  gown,  on  the  charge  of  vagrancy.  This  was 
directed  against  the  Capuchines  who  had  a  house  in  Aix.  ''Agence" 
appealed  to  the  Council  of  State  and  finally  obtained  the  resignation  of 
the  commander  and  the  restitution  of  the  rights  to  the  order.  A 
similar  incident  wfth  similar  consequences  occurred  at  Meileray. 
For  further  details  V.  Boutard  II.  186. 


37 


is  the  fact  that  by  the  second  act  of  its  incorporation  it  gave 
the  primary  impetus  to  a  campaign  carried  on  against  the 
"monopole  universitaire"— a  combat  which  was  to  last  from 
the  formation  of  the  "Agence"  to  the  year  1850,  to  survive 
Louis  Philippe's  fall  and  be  actively  concerned  in  it,  to  reverse 
at  least  once  the  channel  of  exterior  and  interior  politics, 
and  finally  to  be  victorious  under  a  republic.  The  "Agence" 
then  began  the  struggle  for  liberty  of  teaching. 

i^Mai^i^i      In  one  of  tlie  early  numDers  °f  I'Avenir  for  May,  1831, 
the  following  notice  appeared : 

"The  'Agence'  generate  pour  la  defense  de  la  liberte  re- 
ligieuse"  is  founding  a  free  day  school  (ecole  gratuite 
d'externe)  without  the  authorization  of  the  University,  at  rue 
Bonaparte  5,  Paris.  They  will  teach  there  the  elements  of 
religion,  French,  Latin,  Greek,  writing  and  arithmetic,  and 
later  they  will  add,  on  a  more  extended  plan,  other  branches 
of  human  and  divine  knowledge.  The  "Agence"  desires 
that  this  school  be  free,  not  only  because  it  is  possible,  and 
the  Christian  should  introduce  charity  wherever  he  can,  but 
also  because  instruction  in  order  to  become  universal  should 
be  free,  an  advantage  that  religion  alone  can  procure  for 
society." 

"The  Agence,"  then,  was  attempting  to  test  the  charter 
/'  Avenir,  which  had  promised  liberty  of  instruction,  but  which  so  far 
t  Mai.,  1830  had  been  refused  on  the  ground  that  the  Napoleonic  "code 
universitaire"  was  still  in  force,  prohibiting  the  founding  of  a 
school  without  direct  sanction  from  the  Council  of  the 
University,  at  Paris ;  which  body,  again,  should  supervise  all 
instruction  therein  administered.  The  question  naturally 
arises,  how  had  this  article  come  into  the  Charter  when  exist- 
ing legislation  already  prohibited  it?  This  question  is  difficult 
to  answer.  It  was  doubtless  the  result  of  a  compromise  be- 
tween the  different  parties,  made  at  the  time  of  the  formation 
of  the  July  Monarchy.  Some  would  have  us  believe  that  it 
was  due  to  the  direct  intervention  of  La  Mennais.  But  as 
there  cannot  be  found  the  slightest  evidence  of  any  such  in- 
terference on  his  part,  this  assertion  cannot  be  accepted.  It  is, 
on  the  other  hand,  quite  probable  that  La  Mennais  had,  by 
his  own  works,  influenced  certain  persons  already  disposed 


38 


to  such  a  change,  to  suggest  this  article.  In  nearly  all  his 
later  works  La  Mennais  advocated  a  policy  of  liberty  of 
teaching.  As  early  as  1817  this  liberty  had  been  agitated 
elsewhere,  for,  the  Mercure  of  October  181 7,  contains  an 
article  by  B.  Constant  on  the  subject.  The  question  was 
again  agitated  in  1828  by  Duchatel.  Again,  in  1830  Guizot 
and  Constant  published  a  "Memorial  en  faveur  de  la  liberte 
de  rEnseignement,"  and  the  two  were  members  of  an  organiza- 
tion known  as  "la  Societe  de  la  Morale  Chretienne."  From 
these  facts,  then,  it  may  be  inferred  that  the  leaders  of  the 
doctrinaires  favoured  such  a  change  in  regard  to  the  school 
system.19  Its  insertion  was  probably  the  natural  result  of 
earlier  discussion. 

In  1 83 1,  then,  to  Montalembert,  de  Coux  and  Lacordaire 
fell  the  duty  of  managing  the  new  enterprise — an  "ecole  libre" 
sanctioned  by  the  69th  article  of  the  Charter.  The  School 
was  opened  on  the  9th  of  May  in  the  presence  of  a  great 
assembly,  many  of  whom  must  have  come  out  of  mere  curi- 
osity. As  had  been  foreseen  by  its  directors,  the  new  institu- 
tion was  closed  by  the  officers  of  the  law  on  May  nth,  and 
the  principals  were  ordered  to  appear  before  the  tribunal.  This 
was  just  what  the  "Agence"  had  wanted;  now  the  Charter 
would  be  tested  legally,  and  public  opinion  would  be  called 
upon  to  assert  itself. 

"We  desire  to  set  before  citizens  selected  at  random,  this 
University  that  has  had  twenty  years  in  which  to  gain  the 
love  of  the  families.  We  are  all  children.  What  had  it  to 
fear?  Why  has  not  the  University  asked  that  a  jury  decide 
between  us?  We  who  are  nothing,  it  is  we  who  defy  it;  and 
our  challenge  is,  to  select  by  lot,  wherever  they  will,  twelve 
fathers  of  families  and  they  shall  be  our  judges.  We  de- 
clare this  before  you,  gentlemen,  who  are  the  magistrates  of 
the  country,  before  all  those  of  our  fellow-citizens  who  are 
here  present,  before  all  of  France,  and  since  the  University 
will  not  accept,  we  will  demand  the  jury  to  whom  every 
political  transgression  is  answerable.''20 


V.  Espe- 
cially "des 
Progres  de 
la  Rev.  et  de 
la  guerre 

contre 
l'figlise  au 
XIX  Siecle 


Thureau 
Dangin, 
E  et  E,  126 


19  V.  en  plus — National,  6  Mai,  1830.  Article  by  Thiers.  Further- 
more, LaFayette  in  his  proclamation  to  the  people  made  them  the 
promise  of  the  liberty  of  instruction. 

20  VAvenir,  4  Juin  1831. 


39 


Fate,  in  a  curious  way,  seemed  to  favour  the  accused,  for 
on  the  very  eve  of  the  trial,  Montalembert  succeeded  his 
father  in  the  chamber  of  Peers,  and  therefore  the  case  was 
taken  before  the  highest  court  of  appeal  in  France.  The 
Ministry  demanded  a  condemnation  and  the  chamber  acceded, 
but  the  penalty  (100  francs)  was  so  small  that  the  verdict 
practically  amounted  to  an  acquittal.21 

The  outcome  of  the  trial  had  considerable  effect  upon  the 
Liberal  Catholics.  First  it  brought  out  the  distinction  between 
the  Liberals  de  fait  and  the  Liberals  de  mot,  and  secondly 
it  laid  firm  the  foundations  for  the  great  combat  of  1841-1846; 
the  new  movement  was  not  to  die  out.  The  government,  on 
the  other  hand,  did  not  gain  much  profit  for  this  litigation  and 
the  preceding  one,  had  not  added  to  the  glory  it  so  much 
needed  or  its  reputation  for  the  liberalism  it  had  so  loudly 
protested.  Two  articles,  then,  had  been  given  a  trial,  and 
had  proven  utter  shams ;  the  liberty  of  the  press,  and  the 
liberty  of  public  instruction.  The  former,  the  Liberal  Cath- 
olics had  tested  in  concert  with  other  papers  (the  Globe 
and  the  Presse)  but  the  latter  they  had  tried  alone.  In 
so  doing  they  had  unveiled  and  shown  in  its  complete  and 
true  light  the  weakness  and  inherent  hypocrisy  of  the  existing 
government.  This  had  given  heart  to  the  Liberals  and  had 
assisted  them  in  their  own  programme.  Had  Louis  Philippe 
and  his  ministers  but  followed  their  advice  many  unpleasant 
complications  might  have  been  avoided,  and  La  Mennais'  party 
might  have  been  of  great  service  to  the  France  of  1830. 

The  entire  interest  of  VAvenir  and  the  "Agence"  how- 
ever, had  not  been  centered  about  the  trial  alone.  In  a  few 
months  the  "Agence"  had  made  magnificent  progress ;  its  mem- 
bership had  been  more  than  doubled,  and  the  Council,  having 
affiliated  the  various  provincial  organizations  of  a  similar  sort 
in  France,  was  not  content  with  this  work.  They  now  pro- 
ceeded to  put  into  operation  a  plan  they  had  long  had  in 
prospect,  and  one  which  in  a  single  instance  at  least,  did 
enjoy  permanent  success.    Formerly  the  "Agence"  had  de- 

21  A  propos  of  the  trial  Boutard  II  197  relates  an  interesting  incident: 
"M.  de  Coux  parla  apres  M.  de  Montalembert,  et  il  fut  moins  heureux. 
L'n  mot  lui  echappa  qui  dechaina  dans  la  chambre  haute  une  telle 
tempete  qu'il  dut  renouncer  a  son  plaidoyer.  ...  II  avait  designe  Louis 
Philippe  par  cette  periphrase  le  roi  provisoire  de  la  France." 

40 


clared  itself  the  defenders  of  the  oppressed,  and  by  this  it 
had  been  understood  that  its  officers  meant  to  protect  the 
oppressed  in  France.  Now,  however,  it  became  evident  that 
they  wished  to  extend  their  influence  to  all  parts  of  Europe 
and  the  new  world  as  well.  Branch  societies  were  established 
throughout  Christendom.  M.  de  Coux  was  given  charge  of 
Belgium  and  the  United  States ;  Lacordaire  of  Switzerland 
and  Italy ;  and  Montalembert  of  Poland,  Sweden,  Germany 
and  Ireland.  The  plan  was  to  seize  upon  the  liberal  movement 
already  active  in  these  countries,  and  catholicise  it.  Such  a 
policy  became  known  as  the  Liberal  Catholic  system  of 
"international  ultramontanism." 

It  was  in  Belgium,  especially,  that  the  "Agence"  had  most 
success.  VAvenir  and  its  illustrious  editor  were  very  pop- 
ular in  that  country.  In  fact,  it  is  said  that  many  of  the 
articles  appearing  iru  VAvenir  on  one  day  were  reprinted 
on  the  morrow  in  a  similar  paper  at  Louvain.  Now  Belgium, 
like  France,  had  had  a  revolution,  but  there  was  this  distinction : 
one  of  the  fundamental  causes  had  been  of  a  religious  nature, 
the  incompatibility  of  the  citizens  in  the  Kingdom  of  the 
Netherlands,  one  half  of  whom  were  Roman  Catholics  and 
one  half  Protestants.  Furthermore,  the  Roman  Catholics 
were  liberals,  and  when  the  Revolution  broke  out  they  applied 
the  doctrines  of  La  Mennais — of  whose  ideas  they  had  long 
since  expressed  sincere  approval. 

A  correspondent  from  Brussels  wrote : 

"En  France  les  doctrines  liberates  n'approchent  du 
sanctuaire  qu'avec  une  sorte  de  timidite.  En  Belgique,  au 
contraire,  elles  montent  jusqu'a  l'autel  avec  le  pretre  et  en 
descendent  avec  lui  pour  se  repandre,  en  meme  temps  que  sa 
parole  ....  Ici,  on  ne  concoit  pas  la  religion  separee  de  la 
liberte."22 

Many  times  in  the  later  struggle,  champions  of  religious 
liberty  were  to  point  with  eager  and  envious  hand  to  the 
Kingdom  of  Belgium. 

23  The  same  writer  further  points  out  the  similarity  of  the  two  in 
their  common  opposition  to  Gallicanism,  by  the  following  statement : 
"Rien  de  plus  incomprehensible  pour  un  beige  qu'um  pretre  Gallican." 
VAvenir  5  Aout  1831. 


4: 


This  close  religious  alliance  was  further  cemented  by  the 
very  evident  desire  of  the  French  government  to  have  a 
friendly  and  peaceful  neighbour.    In  regard  to  Belgium,  then 
Ami  de  la   the  July  Monarchy  and  the  Liberal  Catholics  were  at  one. 
du^roi*  io    ^0t  S0        Gallicans,  however,  who  complained  bitterly  and 
Fevrier,     regretted  the  old  regime  in  Belgium  as  well  as  in  France 
l83i        Moreover,  outside  of  France  there  were  parties  who,  while 
upholding  the  existing  monarchy,  condemned  its  policy  and 
the  propaganda  of  certain  of  its  parties: 

"France  has  too  extensive  an  idea  of  her  duty  if  she 
imagines  herself  called  upon  to  prevent  intervention  in  every 
part  of  the  world  as  well  as  in  Belgium.    The  new  State  of 
Belgium  borders  upon  her  territory  and  an  aggression  on  her 
neighbours  to  put  down  principles  which  were  common  to 
both  would  be  an  aggression  against  France.    But  Poland  is 
not  in  the  same  predicament    It  lies  at  the  distance  of  several 
hundred  miles  from  France  with  the  barrier  of  Germany 
interposed.    To  send  an  army  to  Warsaw  would  therefore 
London     necessarily  kindle  the  flames  of  a  whole  continent.    If  Don 
\priT^6     Quixote  had  redressed  only  the  wrongs  of  his  own  village 
1831        he  might  not  have  been  a  hero,  but  he  would  have  avoided 
the  commission  of  mischief  and  the  charge  of  madness  in  his 
erratic  excursion  to  find  and  redress  them." 

It  is  true,  there  were  many  eyes  in  France  turned  toward 
the  struggling  Poles,  but,  in  the  end,  the  government  was 
not  to  heed  the  appeals  made  in  their  behalf.    Two  parties 
principally  led  this  agitation,  the  Liberal  Catholics  and  their 
now    somewhat    suspicious   allies,    the    Republicans.  The 
V  VAvenir   "Agence"  an<^        party  watched  with  many  heart-burnings 
Nos.,  16     and  great  interest  the  progress  of  events  in  that  kingdom,  and 
Sept  ^831    &ave  them  their  moral  support,  their  prayers,  and  even  a  cer- 
tain   amount    of   financial   assistance.     Montalembert  had 
signalled  the  commencement  of  the  struggle  in  the  following 
terms : 

*DeIfW'?8  cf  ^aSt  S^le  ^aS  uttere<^  ner  cry  °^  awakening,  at  last  she 

has  shaken  off  her  chains  and  threatens  with  them  the  heads 
of  her  barbarous  oppressors,  this  proud  and  generous  Poland, 
so  slandered,  so  oppressed,  so  dear  to  all  free  and  Catholic 
hearts.'' 


42 


Some,  too,  of  his  more  bold  associates  would  have 
joined  with  LaFayette  and  the  Republicans  who  sought  to 
lend  force  to  aid  a  people  struggling  with  a  cruel  tyrant.  One 
party  favoured  it  as  a  fight  for  nationality  and  political  liberty 
while  the  other  cried  out  in  its  behalf  for  these  reasons 
and  also  because  it  was  a  struggle  against  the  "nationalization" 
of  a  Catholic  faith.23  The  former,  through  LaFayette,  based 
their  plea  on  the  nation's  safety: 

"Whenever  any  country  in  Europe,  whatever  it  may  be, 
attempts  to  recover  its  rights,  it  is  a  direct  act  of  hostility 
against  us  to  interfere,  not  only  because  it  revives  the  princi- 
ples of  Pilnitz  and  the  Holy  Alliance,  and  justifies  future  ag- 
gression against  our  liberty  and  independence,  but  because 
common  sense  assures  us  that  it  is  the  same  as  saying :  'Wait, 
we  are  going  to  crush  your  national  auxiliaries,  the  friends  of 
liberty  in  other  countries,  and  when  they  have  ceased  to  exist, 
we  will  fall  upon  you  with  our  whole  weight.'  "24 

Once  more  the  government's  selfish  policy  was  demonstrated. 
A  weak  show  of  compliance  with  so  many  demands  was  all  it 
attempted.  This  attitude  did  not  help  the  July  Monarchy. 
Russia,  more  distrustful  than  ever,  kept  aloof  from  Louis 
Philippe. 

In  Germany  and  in  Italy,  too,  the  influence  of  the  "Agence" 
was  felt.   There  will  be  a  better  occasion  to  note  its  relations 
with  Italy  in  the  next  chapter.    Among  the  German  states 
there   was   already    in    operation    a    sort    of   government  V,  I'Avenir, 
bureaucracy  which  sought  to  limit  the  influence  of  Rome  in  J^J-}™ 
church  affairs.      The  distinction  between  Old  and  Young  1831 
Catholics  was  increased  by  the  growth  of  the  Jung  Deutsch- 
land  School.    In  Munich  the  Doellinger  group  under  the 

,aLe  Mennais,  their  leader,  was  to  utter  a  year  later  these  powerful 
words  on  the  fate  of  Poland :  "Je  vois  un  peuple  combattre  comme 
l'archange  Michel  combattoit  contre  Satan.  Ses  coups  sont  terribles, 
mais  il  est  nu,  et  son  ennemi  est  convert  d'une  epaisse  armure.  y  y Avenir 

O  Dieu !  il  tombe ;  il  est  f rappe  a  mort,  non,  il  n'est  que  blesse :  Nos.  1  Mars 
Marie,  la  Vierge — mere,  l'enveloppe  de  son  manteau,  lui  sourit,  et  et  15  Avril, 
l'importe  pour  un  peu  de  temps  hors  de  combat."    Paroles  d'un 
Croyant.  II. 

24 Commenting  on  this  statement  the  London  Times  remarked:  'The 
gallant  general  has  here  laid  down  too  extensive  a  scale  of  duty  for 
his  country."   London  Times,  Jan.  18,  1831. 


43 


name  of  the  "Round  Table"  were  seeking  to  combat  govern- 
ment influence,  and  were  eagerly  watching  the  progress  of 
Boutard,  affairs  in  France.  Later,  they  were  to  become  the  hosts  of 
214  La  Mennais  and  the  first  to  console  him  in  the  dark  hour 
of  his  condemnation.  Still  farther  north  as  well,  the  influence 
of  the  "Agence"  had  spread  and  was  aiding  in  the  re-estab- 
lishment of  the  old  Swedish  priesthood,  while  in  Ireland,  the 
Liberal  Catholics  displayed  keen  interest,  and  solicited  sub- 
scriptions for  the  cause  of  O'Connell's  famished  countrymen. 
This  last  interest  did  not  disappear  with  the  dissolution  of 
the  "Agence." 

It  was  at  the  very  moment  when  all  seemed  to  be  progressing 
so  well  and  when  the  Liberal  Catholics  appeared  to  be  weather- 
ing the  storms  around  them,  that  VAvenir  published  what 
has  been  known  as  its  "testament  publique."  Having  estab- 
lished their  power  the  Liberal  Catholics  now  sought  to  bind 
it  by  a  great  political  union.  It  proved  to  be  the  last  great 
public  act  of  VAvenir,  and  by  this  act  alone  it  fell.  In 
appearance  the  "Acte  d'Union"  must  have  seemed  immense, 
even  grotesque ;  in  reality,  it  was  the  logical  development 
of  their  principle  of  "international  ultramontanism"  declared 
some  months  before,  and  La  Mennais'  traditional  love  of 
order. 

The  "Acte"  is  divided  into  three  parts,  a  consideration  of 
the  spiritual  rights  of  society,  of  its  temporal  rights  and, 
the  consequent  duty  of  the  State.  In  the  first  section,  basing 
the  argument  entirely  on  the  ground  that  the  spiritual  side  of 
society  must  be  separate  and  absolutely  independent  of  in- 
tervention on  the  part  of  the  political  power,  the  "Acte" 
establishes  the  right  of  liberty  of  conscience  and  belief  (culte), 
of  liberty  of  the  press,  and  of  instruction.  In  Part  II,  these 
three  rights  being  established,  constitutional  power  (govern- 
ment) has  only  the  right  to  intervene  in  temporal  affairs. 
But  here  again  the  government's  power  should  be  so  limited 
that  it  does  not  prevent  those  personally  interested  from 
taking  part  in  the  administration  of  local  affairs.  The  gov- 
ernment should  always  remember  that  its  principal  duties  are 
those  of  maintaining  political  unity,  a  general  and  agreeable 
harmony  between  the  various  particular  administrations,  of 


safeguarding  the  general  interest  and  supervising  the  defense 
of  the  State.  All  these  other  things  accepted,  Part  III  recom- 
mends a  more  extensive  application  of  the  law  of  justice  and 
charity  even  to  the  point  of  educating  and  preparing  the 
masses  that  they  may,  by  degrees,  be  enabled  to  participate 
more  and  more  in  all  the  social  privileges  due  them.25 

The  "Acte  d'Union''  was  indeed  for  France  the  Magna 
Charta  of  the  nineteenth  century. 

Such  was  the  document  that  brought  forth  protestations 
of  horror  from  ministers  of  state,  prelates  at  Rome  and 
kings  who  heretofore  had  prided  themselves  on  their  quasi- 
liberal  policies.  To  the  eyes  of  the  Twentieth  Century,  and 
to  our  own  country  in  particular,  it  seems  little  more  than 
common  sense — a  reformed  and  spiritualized  church ;  a 
liberal  and  republican  form  of  government.  But  to  those  of 
1830  it  conjured  up  all  the  terrors  and  petty  ambitions  of 
the  Revolution,  the  slaughters  and  pitiless  tyrannies  of 
Napoleon,  of  a  Church  which  would  not  serve  their  purpose 
and  of  a  God  whose  real  attributes  most  of  them  had  forgotten. 
The  "Acte  d'Union"  was  an  anachronism,  the  ideals  of  its 
authors  were  past  the  narrow  comprehension  of  the  early 
nineteenth  century.  The  State  had  lived  so  long  from  its 
very  creators  that  it  no  longer  knew  them;  the  Church 
had  wandered  so  far  from  its  flock  that  it  mistook  them  for 
the  greedy  inheritors  of  its  enemies  in  1790.  This 
was  the  situation,  La  Mennais  had  been  completely  mis- 
understood. A  farcical  examination  followed,  and  then  a 
papal  bull.  Here  again,  La  Mennais'  actions  were  misunder- 
stood. There  has  been  talk  of  forged  letters  and  the 
deception  of  a  papal  legate,  but  these  must  be  left  aside, 
for  there  is  not  sufficient  evidence  to  substantiate  such 
assertions.  But  this  evidence,  in  turn,  is  really  unnecessary 
for  the  subsequent  action  of  La  Mennais  at  this  time  (No- 
vember, 1831)  is  a  sufficient  justification  of  his  faith  and  a 
proof  that  he  did  not  know  that  his  works  had  the  disapproval 
of  the  one  who  was  for  him  the  highest  authority.  Letters 
had  come  from  Rome,  but  the  same  words  had  come  from 
Ami  de  la  Religion  et  du  roi  and  from  the  French  gov- 

23  "For  the  Acte  d'Union"  in  toto  V.  Appendix  I. 


45 


ernment.  He  knew  not  where  he  stood.  Peter's  successor 
had  remained  silent. 

The  rest  of  the  story  is  quickly  told.  Alarmed  by  the  up- 
roar they  saw  around  them,  by  the  unmistakable  signs  of 
hostility  from  the  higher  clergy  in  France  and  by  the  de- 
mands of  the  Conservative  majority,  the  Liberal  Catholics 
resolved  to  go  to  Rome,  following  the  advice  of  their  youngest 
member.  In  November,  the  last  number  of  VAvenir 
appeared : 

"If  we  retire  from  the  field  for  a  moment,  we  do  not 
do  so  because  of  weariness  or  still  less,  because  of  discourage- 
ment, but  simply  to  follow  the  example  of  the  soldiers  of 
Israel  in  other  times,  to  go  to  consult  the  Lord  in  Shiloh.  Our 
faith  and  our  intentions  have  been  questioned.  In  fact,  at 
this  time,  who  is  not  attacked?  We  leave,  therefore,  for  a 
brief  time,  the  field  of  battle  in  order  to  fulfill  another  duty 
equally  important.  The  staff  of  the  pilgrim  in  our  hands, 
we  will  journey  to  the  Eternal  City  and  there,  prostrate  at 
the  feet  of  the  Pontiff  whom  Jesus  Christ  had  appointed  as 
a  guide  and  master  to  his  disciples,  we  will  say:  "O  Father, 
look  upon  a  few  of  your  flock  who  are  accused  of  being 
rebellious  to  your  infallible  authority ;  here  they  are  before 
you,  read  their  minds ;  there  is  nothing  that  they  would  hide. 
If  even  one  of  their  thoughts  is  contrary  to  yours,  they  will 
VAvenir,  disavow  it  forever.  You  are  the  rule  of  their  theories ;  indeed 
I5i83iV '  nave  never  known  another.  O  Father,  pronounce  for  them 

the  word  that  gives  life,  because  it  gives  light,  and  may  thy 
hand  extend  to  bless  their  faithfulness  and  their  love.'  "26 
Later,  La  Mennais  said : 

"En  France  on  n'a  des  yeux  que  derriere  la  tete.  As  far 
as  my  theories  are  concerned,  I  believed  then  and  I  still 
believe  that  we  have  not  advocated  any  others  than  those 
upheld  by  the  Holy  See.  If  I  am  mistaken,  they  will  tell 
me,  and  I  will  cry  from  the  housetops  their  words.  While 
waiting,  we  will  be  silent.'' 

But  painful  revelations  awaited  at  Rome  "the  pilgrims  of 

VCori£Ud    God  and  of  Li^rty." 

Incd.  de  La  "Ami  de  la  Reliaion  et  du  roi  announced  the  immediate  condem- 
Mennais  Re-       .         ,„„..,  ,•      i  A      ui  t- 

vue  des      nation    of    YAvemr    with  a    malice    hardly    pardonable.     l*or  this 

deux  mondes  controversy  see:  Ami  de  la  Religion  et  du  roi,  17  Xovembre  1831. 

1  Nov.,  1905  Also  Ami  de  la  Religion  et  du  roi,  Lettre  de  Waille,  26  November 

1831. 

46 


CHAPTER  III 


THE  FALL  OF  THE  LA  MENNAIS  MOVEMENT 

Shortly  before  leaving  Paris  La  Mennais  had  remarked: 
"This  accursed  politics  is  everywhere  the  ruin  of  religion,"   e.  Forgues 
and  his  biographer  has  commented :   "this  observation,  only  Torres,  hied, 
too  true,  reveals  the  malentendu  that  already  existed  between  tard,  II,  269 
La  Mennais  and  the  Court  of  Rome." 

Subsequent  facts  bear  out  this  statement ;  the  craving  for 
power  still  existed  in  the  Eternal  City.    But,  there  is  still 
another  sense  in  which  the  abbe  Boutard's  comment  is  true. 
The  malentendu  existed  also  between  La  Mennais  and  the        l  nd  n 
Court  of  France.    It  is  a  curious  and  yet  none  the  less  typical  Tunes, 
fact  that  La  Mennais  when  the  Acte  d'Union  was  promulgated,  ^[chD^6, 
had  not  taken,  or  else  did  not  wish  to  take,  into  consideration  patch 
the  political  conditions  in  his  own  country.    If  he  had  done  f™™  Paris 
so  it  is  not  unreasonable  to  suppose  that  he  would  have  waited. 
Truly,  in  this  instance  he  had  not  well  calculated  his  time. 
"The  Acte  d'Union"  had  been  formulated  while  the  ministry 
of  the  "mouvement"  was  still  in  power,  but  that  body  was  now 
fast  approaching  the  time  of  its  fall.    The  Period  of  Forma- 
tion was  over,  and  the  Period  of  Parliamentary  struggle  was 
already  beginning.    Louis  Philippe,  alarmed  when  he  found 
that  he  could  not  make  peace  at  home  and  abroad  through  Moniteur, 
the  efforts  of  the  progressives,  had  decided  to  call  the  "Re    18  Mars, 
sistance"  to  power.    Accordingly,  on  the  thirteenth  of  March 
he  formed  a  more  severe  and  more  forceful  ministry;  the 
monarchy  could  no  longer  afford  to  waste  time  with  a  weak 
and  indefinite  party.   At  home  they  needed  a  strong  resistance 
to  the  recriminations  of  the  Republicans  and  Legitimists ; 
abroad  a  ministry,  capable  of  settling  the  difficult  questions    V.  Hille- 
of  Belgium  and  the  London  Conference,  powerful  enough  to 
strengthen  the  English  alliance,  and  above  all  to  adopt  a  con- 
sistent and  definite  attitude.    This  new  government,  it  was 

47 


hoped,  would  explain  to  uneasy  Europe,  considering  further 

concerted  action  against  liberal  governments,  the  meaning  of 

q  ^      ^    that  ambiguous  term — "non-intervention."1    A  policy  of  deceit 

Memoirs,  I,  was  n0  longer  possible.    The  man  whom  the  king  chose  as 

215.    Dupm,  prime  minister,  was  a  typical  bourgeois  whose  creed  was  his 

218.    de  '  class  and  his  king.    Like  his  predecessor,  a  banker,  Casimir 

Barante,  Perier  would  not,  so  the  king  thought,  be  unmindful  of  the 
Lettres.  7  .  ,      £  xl_  S  5    '     .  . 

Mars,  1831.  economic  needs  of  the  country — a  question  becoming  more 

L.  Blanc,  I,  serious  every  day.  To  a  certain  extent  Louis  Philippe  was 
not  deceived  in  this ;  Casimir  Perier  was  considerate  of  the 
large  vested  interests.  The  new  minister  possessed  at  least 
the  quality  of  exactness ;  he  was  stubborn  to  an  extreme,  and 
the  country  soon  had  reason  to  believe  that  he  would  not 
choose  a  middle  course  in  regard  to  any  one  policy.2  His 
plan,  therefore,  was  typical  and  his  view  of  the  July  Monarchy 
may  be  said  to  be  the  view  of  his  class.  For  the  July  Rev- 
olution, he  had  agreed  with  his  confreres  in  the  following 
statement :  "We  have  not  had  a  revolution,  we  have  experi- 
enced only  a  slight  change  in  the  person  at  the  head  of  the 
State."  So  much  for  his  attitude  to  the  monarchy  expressed 
in  the  characteristically  clear  and  concise  form.  He  had  also 
upheld  the  principle  of  a  double  policy ;  for  France  order 
and  authority  without  any  restriction  of  liberty,  for  external 
affairs  a  beneficial  peace  because,  as  he  put  it,  "French  blood 
belongs  to  France  alone."  With  this  in  view  he  selected  his 
colleagues,  the  great  majority  of  whom  belonged  to  his  own 

1  This  Perier  proceeded  to  do  in  his  first  speech  before  the  Pari. 
V.  Perier  Discours,  18  Mars  1831. 

2  The  new  regime  possessed  all  the  strength  that  can  possibly  belong 
to  the  mendacity  of  early  concessions,  it  was  founded  and  nothing 
remained  but  to  defend  it.  The  natural  course  of  things  therefore  called 
a  violent  minister  to  office.  .  .  .  He  entered  it  with  an  immense  stock 
of  angry  passions,  a  pride  without  bounds,  a  certain  fierce  impatience 
to  trample  on  his  enemies.  An  opulent  banker  and  always  on  the 
alert,  the  noise  of  factions  had  caused  him  mortal  alarms  and  he 
burned  to  avenge  the  anguish  of  his  fears.  .  .  .  Fully  convinced  how- 
ever, that  in  saving  the  interests  of  the  middle  class  he  would  serve 
his  own,  he  threw  his  whole  existence  into  the  conflict.  The  crown 
too  he  wished  to  save,  and  he  rushed  to  its  defense,  but  without  illusion, 
devotedness  or  love,  and  simply  because  he  chose  to  support  in  royalty 
an  institution  protective  to  banking  interests."  L.  Blanc.  I.  412  and 
Chap.  IX.  Bk.  IV. 

48 


party,  while  he  was  aided  to  some  extent  in  the  chambers  by 
Guizot,  Dupin  and  Thiers.3 

The  first  interest  of  the  new  Premier  was  to  silence  the 
Republican  party  who,  during  the  preceding  administration  had 
made  such  violent  complaints  against  the  pacific  policy  of  the 
government.  He  attacked  the  Society  of  the  Peoples'  Friend, 
really  a  revival  of  the  old  Jacobin  Club ;  its  members,  Cavaig- 
nac,  Teste  and  Fortou,  were  prosecuted,  but  they  were  finally 
acquitted.  Thereupon  the  Premier  persuaded  Louis  Philippe 
to  dissolve  the  Chambers.  Accordingly,  the  dissolution  was 
announced  for  the  last  day  of  May  and  new  elections  were 
ordered  for  the  fifth  day  of  July.  The  Chambers,  however, 
were  not  dissolved  before  they  had  passed  a  new  law  (April 
15)  reducing  the  franchise  and  doubling  the  electorate.  There 
were  now  200,000  electors  out  of  a  total  population  of  30,000,- 
000.  Shortly  afterward  the  riots  of  the  14th  of  June  and 
14th  of  July  occurred,  the  latter  beginning  at  the  Bastile,  as 
had  happened  some  forty  years  before.  Moreover  if  the 
Premier  did  not  succeed  in  the  impeachment  of  the  Republicans 
in  April,  the  returns  of  the  July  elections  only  served  to 
heighten  his  anxiety ;  and  abroad,  as  in  France,  people  began 
to  fear  for  the  dynasty. 

Outside  the  borders  of  France  matters  were  not  much  better, 
and  the  position  of  Louis  Philippe's  government  was  conse- 
quently less  secure. 

" Poland  tottering  to  its  fall,  and  threatening  to  bring  down 
with  it  the  old  preponderance  of  the  West ;  the  Papacy  violently 
reinstated  in  its  temporal  sovereignty,  and  thereby  become  once 
more  the  accomplishment  of  all  earthly  tyrannies ;  four  powers 
labouring  hard  to  repair,  to  the  detriment  of  one,  the  Euro- 
pean balance  which  had  been  disturbed  by  the  emancipation  of 
Belgium,  lastly  France  abandoning  the  guardianship  of  the 
world  to  the  hands  of  some  proud  and  incompetent  men." 

3  Casimir — President  of  the  Council,  Minister  of  Interior. 
M.  Barette — Garde  des  sceaux. 
Baron  Louis — Minister  of  Finance. 
Marechal  Soult — Minister  of  War. 
l'Amiral  Rigny — Minister  of  Marine. 

Comte  de  Montalivet — Minister  of  Public  Instruction  and  Sects. 
Conte  d'Argent — Minister  of  Commerce  and  Public  Works. 


7  Mars, 
de  Barante, 

183 1 
L.  Blanc,  I, 
414 

Thureau 
Dangin, 
II,  29 


v.  London 
Times, 
June  23, 

1831 
Dispatch 
from 
Paris 


49 


These  were  the  conditions  confronting  the  new  chambers 
when  they  convened  to  hear  the  king's  speech  on  July  23rd. 
Of  many  important  questions  such  as  the  Italian  States,  the 
London  Conference  and  the  hopeless  attitude  of  the  govern- 
ment to  Poland,  that  discussed  by  the  Deputies  most  fully 
'  concerned  the  abolition  of  hereditary  peerage.4  This  project 
had  not  the  entire  sympathy  of  Perier,  nor  of  such  of  his 
satellites  as  Guizot,  Thiers  and  Royer-Collard ;  but  the  bour- 
geoisie were  so  persistent  in  their  demand  for  the  revision 
of  Article  Twenty-three  of  the  Charter  that,  in  the  end,  a  law 
was  proposed  providing  for  a  system  of  nomination  by  the 
king  from  a  legally  constituted  list  of  eminent  men  and  men 
already  in  office.  The  law  aroused,  of  course,  bitter  oppo- 
sition among  the  nobles,  but  Casimir  Perier's  reply  to  their 
protest  was  the  Royal  Ordinance  of  November  19th  creating 
thirty-six  new  peers.  By  means  of  this,  the  law,  slightly 
changed,  was  passed.  The  discussion  attending  the  new  law, 
however,  brought  with  it  another  evil,  the  renewed  activity 
of  the  Legitimists  exhorted  by  such  men  as  'Chateaubriand 
and  Berryer.  Their  leaders,  happily  for  Perier,  were  not  men 
fit  to  be  political  agitators  and,  except  for  the  affair  of  La 
Vendee  and  the  duchesse  de  Berri  episode,  no  other  signs  of 
hostility  appeared.  But  all  these  incidents,  however  small 
in  importance  they  may  have  seemed,  were  none  the  less  signifi- 
cant, and  had  the  opposition  been  more  centralized  and  less 
divided,  the  July  Monarchy  might  have  been  seriously  en- 
dangered. There  are,  in  addition,  two  events  that  assume 
a  still  greater  importance  in  the  calendar  of  the  political 
progress  made  under  Louis  Philippe.  Between  November  22 
and  December  30,  1831,  occurred  the  revolt  of  the  silk  weavers 
at  Lyons,  and  a  few  months  later  a  similar  revolt  at  Grenoble. 
The  importance  of  these  two  uprisings  lies  in  the  fact  that 
they  are  the  signs  of  the  birth  of  a  socialist  party,  springing 
from  the  general  discontent  prevalent  in  France  because  of 
economic  changes,  and  also  from  the  divisions  in  the  Re- 
publicans and  St.  Simonians.  This  new  party,  about  a  score 
of  years  later,  was  to  play  a  principal  role  in  the  formation 
of  a  new  government. 

4  For  an  ex.  of  the  agitation  upon  this  subject  v. :  "Are  100,000 
citizens  30,000.000  of  men?"    Cormenin.  1831. 

50 


At  the  same  time,  however,  that  Perier  was  busied  in  a 
vain  attempt  to  establish  order  and  prosperity  in  France,  other 
events  were  happening  outside  her  borders,  which  were  of 
equal  importance  to  her  future.  The  Polish  question  had  been 
treated  by  Louis  Philippe  in  a  cowardly  fashion,  and  Casimir 
Perier  could  not  have  altered  the  results  of  this  policy  even 
had  he  wished  to  do  so.  But  there  remained  the  difficult 
questions  of  the  new  kingdom  of  Belgium  and  of  the  Italian 
States. 

Upon  the  separation  of  Belgium  from  the  kingdom  of  the 
Netherlands  in  August  1830,  the  Congress  of  London  took 
the  matter  up,  and  the  Five  Powers  agreed  to  settle  the  prob- 
lem according  to  their  common  interests.  The  Belgians  had 
themselves  offered  the  crown  to  the  due  d'Aumale,  but  Louis 
Philippe  had  not  allowed  his  son  to  accept  it.  This  action 
was  somewhat  of  a  relief  to  the  rest  of  Europe.  The  Congress 
subsequently  offered  the  throne  in  the  name  of  the  provisional 
government  at  Brussels  to  Leopold  of  Coburg ;  and  he  accepted, 
not  without  first  concluding  a  secret  agreement  of  friendship 
and  marriage  with  the  Orleans  family.  The  Congress  then 
imagined  that  its  work  was  ended,  but  such  was  not  the  case. 
For  William  of  the  Netherlands  protested  against  the  treaty  of 
the  Eighteen  Articles,  and  renouncing  the  Armistice  of  Novem- 
ber 5,  1830,  entered  Belgium.  Thereupon  Louis  Philippe 
sent  a  French  army  to  the  aid  of  Leopold.  The  act,  an  idea 
of  Casimir  Perier,  created  great  consternation  in  Europe, 
for,  it  was  construed  as  a  direct  violation  of  the  principle 
of  "non-intervention,"  as  they  understood  it.  Later,  after 
order  had  been  restored,  the  French  army  withdrew,  but  not 
until  the  king  of  the  Netherlands  had  retired  to  the  lines 
agreed  upon  the  beginning  of  the  armistice.  Shortly  after- 
wards, the  Congress  at  London  drew  up  the  treaty  of  the 
Twenty-four  Articles  (November  5th),  and  the  signature  of 
King  William  was  all  that  was  necessary  to  assure  peace. 

So  ended  the  year  183 1.  In  France  the  aspects  were 
not  good,  discontent  with  the  internal  policy  and  a  growing 
hostility  to  the  government  increased  by  the  pursuit  of  the 
Republicans.  With  the  foreign  policy,  also,  there  was  equal 
disgust,  particularly  at  the  attempt  to  make  a  nominal  show 


Metternich, 
I,  44 


L.  Blanc,  II 
457,  et  seq 


v.  d'Haus- 
sonville 
Hist,  I. 
Ch.  IV 


Bourgeois, 
III,  Ch.  I 


Moniteur, 
Mars.  15-30, 
Aout  18-30, 

Nov.  18-30 


London 
Times, 
Nos.  for 
Nov.  18-31 


5i 


of  force  which  had  been  judged  rather  mal  a  propos  by  the 
several  countries  interested. 

The  year  1832  opened  dismally;  the  flattering  felicitations 
paid  to  the  king  had  not  kept  from  the  ears  of  the  government 
the  noise  of  riots  and  street  fighting,  such  as  those  of  the 
Fourth  of  January,  the  Tours  de  Xotre  Dame — a  Republican 
Conspiracy — and  the  Legitimist  Revolt  of  the  rue  des 
Prouvaires  the  fourth  of  February.  Discontent  was  every- 
where manifest.  Armand  Carrel  had  not  hesitated  to  put 
into  print  his  Republican  sentiments,  Beranger's  verses  were 
distributed  widespread,  and  Perier  knew  that  the  prosecution 
of  the  press  alone  would  not  stop  the  progress  of  a  movement 
so  dangerous  to  him  and  to  France.5 

Furthermore,  the  question  of  the  budget  would  soon  be 
coming  before  the  Chambers ;  the  people  must  be  distracted 
and  their  eyes  turned  in  another  direction  during  the  discus- 
sion of  so  serious  a  matter.  Then  too,  Perier  scented  another 
danger.  That  same  demand  for  military  conquest  that  had 
appeared  at  such  regular  intervals  so  many  times  before,  was 
gaining  its  hold  on  the  people  and  making  them  impatient. 
Perier  knew  he  must  satisfy  this  craving  or  the  French  might 
come  again  to  regret  the  "glorious  days"  of  the  Revolution. 
It  was  Italy  and  the  Pope  that  offered  him  the  occasion  for 

6  The  following  extract  from  Beranger  is  interesting  as  a  type  of 
the  political  verse  of  the  period : 

"Comme  un  bon  reve  es  tu  done  disparue, 
O  Liberte  si  chere  a  mes  refrains! 
Perier  gouverne,  et  la  France  est  vendue, 
Peuple  geant  subit  le  joug  des  nains, 
Gisquet  t'assomme  et  Vienne  t'empare 
Vient  te  donner  le  coup  de  pied  de  l'ane ; 
Pauvre  Lion,  n'es  tu  pas  musele? 

Rassurez-vous,  Castillon  et  Tartare, 
Peu  vous  importe  ici  le  genre  humain, 
II  ne  s'agit  que  d'aider  un  avare 
A  depouiller  un  Royal  orphelin. 
Vous  le  voyez,  e'est  pour  cette  oeuvre  unique 
Que  notre  sang  dans  Paris  a  coule. 
Mourrez  Pologne,  languissez  Belgique, 
Xotre  Lion,  n'est-il  pas  musele?" 

— From  "Le  Lion  Musele." 


52 


which  he  was  seeking.  Moreover,  in  deciding  to  take  a  hand 
in  Italian  affairs  Perier  hoped  to  accomplish  two  things,  to 
satisfy  the  general  demand  and  to  render  himself  more  secure. 
An  intervention  in  Italy  would  be  interpreted  at  home  as  the 
upholding  of  the  right  of  a  state  to  settle  its  own  affairs. 
Austria  was  interfering  in  Italy ;  a  protest  on  the  part  of  the 
government  would  be  a  pose  of  liberalism  for  the  July  Mon- 
archy, and  an  armed  intervention  redound  to  its  glory.  Then 
too  there  was  still  another  advantage ;  by  taking  part  in  Italian 
troubles  Perier  would  be  embarrasing  the  protests  of  the 
liberals  at  home.  This  would  be  safe,  for,  he  might  ask  the 
Pope  to  grant  political  liberties,  but  he  certainly  did  not  expect 
the  Pope  to  accede  to  his  request.  Furthermore  he  would 
render  null  and  void  any  encouragement  that  the  liberal  fac- 
tion in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  might  have  intended  to 
offer  in  France  to  "those  other  liberals,  those  very  members 
of  the  clergy  who,  lacking  good  education  and  knowing  only 
the  practices  of  religion,  hated  the  present  liberal  institutions 
of  France  and  attacked  society  "in  general,"  and  against  whom 
so  much  was  now  being  said  in  the  Chamber  of  Deputies." 

In  regard  to  the  church  Perier,  if  he  took  any  definite 
stand  at  all,  was  with  the  more  numerous  and  less  active 
party  of  Gallicans.6  This  new  interest  of  the  Perier  Ministry, 
then,  was  not  to  assist  the  cause  of  La  Mennais,  and  whether 
it  was  intentional  or  no,  the  Premier's  policy  had  a  direct  effect 
on  the  fate  of  the  three  editors  of  VAvenir.  It  was  to  serve 
a  threefold  purpose,  then,  to  the  eyes  of  his  countrymen — 
to  satisfy  the  malcontents  by  a  show  of  "gloire" ;  to  quiet 
the  extreme  Liberals  in  Italy  whose  constant  agitation  had 
served  to  keep  alert  the  ultra-liberals — the  party  "du  mouve- 
ment,"  and  lastly,  to  strike  once  and  for  all  the  Holy  Alliance 
based  on  the  principle  of  interference  and  in  defiance  of 


v.  National, 
2  Janvier, 


1832 


Moniteur, 
17  Fevrier, 
1831 


v.  also 
21  Fevrier, 


1831 


*  He  is  said  to  have  remarked :  "La  liberte  des  cultes  sera  protegee 
comme  le  droit  le  plus  precieux  de  conscience  qui  l'invoquent."  (Thu- 
reau-Dangin.  Mon.  Juilet  II.  68.)  But,  under  his  ministery  the  "Ecole 
Libre"  had  been  condemned  and  the  "Acte  d'Union"  protested  against. 
Furthermore  certain  numbers  of  Ami  de  la  Religion  et  du  roi  (April 
1831 — January  1832)  speak  of  the  Premier  in  favorable  terms:  "On 
assure  qu'il  blame  les  vexations  exercees  en  tant  de  lieu  contre  le 
clerge." 


53 


Hillebrand, 
II,  203 


Barrv, 
VIII,  217 


Guizot,  II, 
292 


Metternich, 
IV,  122  Seq 


Barante,  IV, 
Lettres,  27 

Mars,  1831. 
Dep.  Off. 

No.  45,  1 83 1 


which  Perier  had  inaugurated  a  policy  of  non-intervention. 
In  the  eyes  of  the  Premier,  however,  this  diplomacy  was  to 
serve  a  much  smaller  end — that  of  a  mere  distraction.  The 
inconsistency  of  such  a  policy  is  patent;  why  should  Perier 
object  to  the  Austrian  interference  in  the  rebellion  of  the 
Legations  when  he  himself  had  allowed  France  to  intervene 
in  Belgium?  The  fight,  then,  was  not  one  of  high  principles, 
it  was  directed  solely  against  Austrian  influence  in  Bologna, 
the  Romagna  and  the  Marches.  It  was  a  good  time  for  action ; 
Russia  was  occupied  with  Poland,  Prussia  with  the  West  and 
England  was  Protestant. 

One  author  has  said:  "Civil  War  is  the  only  word  that 
will  describe  the  condition  of  Italy  and  the  Papal  States 
during  the  years  1820-1848/'  Italy,  reduced  to  a  geographical 
expression  by  the  treaties  of  1814-1815,  composed  of  two 
large  kingdoms,  the  Papal  States,  and  a  number  of  duchies, 
had  become  a  real  center  of  restlessness,  but  it  was  particularly 
in  the  Legations  that  this  condition  prevailed.  They  had 
hoped  for  a  Liberal  Pope.  Taught  by  Gioberti  they  had  even 
dreamed  of  a  theocratic  republic,  such  as  La  Mennais  had 
predicted  for  them,  but  to  no  avail.  In  November  1830,  Pius 
VIII  died  and  the  College  of  Cardinals  was  convened.  They 
had  been  in  session  two  months  disputing  the  demand  of  Albani, 
Austria's  creature,  that  the  successful  candidate  should  upon  his 
election  appoint  him  as  Papal  Secretary,  when  a  message 
was  secretly  introduced  into  the  Conclave  from  the  Duke  of 
Modena.  In  this  he  informed  the  wrangling  prelates  that  a 
serious  revolution  had  broken  out  in  the  Romagna.  Thus 
the  election  was  finally  precipitated,  and  the  fourth  of  Feb- 
ruary 1 83 1  Cardinal  Capellari  ascended  St.  Peter's  throne. 
He  took  the  name  of  Gregory  XVI.  Upon  his  accession  the 
new  pope  found  himself  entirely  without  means  to  put  down 
the  rebellion,  and  he  was  forced  to  turn  at  once  to  the  sole 
consistent  defender  of  "Legitimacy  and  the  Temporal  Su- 
premacy of  the  Pope" — Austria,  still  ruled  by  Metternich. 
The  Austrian  troops  entered  the  Papal  States.  Immediately 
France,  through  its  ambassador  M.  de  Sainte-Aulaire,  pro- 
tested, and  Austria  agreed  to  withdraw  her  troops.  It  was 
decided  that  order  should  be  maintained  in  the  Legations 


54 


by  the  guarantee  of  the  Powers,  and  by  July  183 1  the  troops 
had  evacuated  the  Romagna.  Furthermore,  by  an  official 
note  (May  1831)  the  Powers  recommended  to  the  Pope  that 
he  try  to  ameliorate  the  conditions  in  the  Papal  States.  This 
he  promised  to  do,  but  his  promises  amounted  to  very  little 
and  the  condition  of  the  Legations  was  not  improved  in  any 
way.  A  conference  of  the  ambassadors  to  France  was  then 
held  in  Paris,  and  it  was  suggested  that  a  State  be  named 
which  should  assist  the  Pope,  as  the  Papal  forces  seemed 
incapable  of  themselves  overpowering  the  rebels  in  the  very 
likely  event  of  further  trouble.  Perier  nominated  the  King- 
dom of  Sardinia  but  the  Powers  held  that  Sardinia  was  not 
strong  enough.  The  French  Premier  then  announced  that 
should  Austria  intervene  in  the  event  of  another  revolt,  France 
would  find  it  necessary  to  take  Ancona  as  a  guarantee.  Thus 
one  fact,  at  least,  is  evident,  the  warning  had  been  given  and 
the  taking  of  Ancona  could  not  have  been  the  unexpected  event 
they  pretended  at  Rome. 

Perier  had  hailed  the  withdrawal  of  the  xAustrians  as  a 
moral  victory  for  French  diplomacy,  but  this  happy  illusion 
was  not  to  last  long.  On  the  first  of  December  the  Ministry 
was  interpellated  by  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  on  the  subject 
of  the  Legations  and  Perier  again  reasserted  the  principles 
of  "non-intervention"  as  he  understood  it — that  France  would 
not  allow  other  powers  to  intervene  in  the  affairs  of  free  and 
independent  states.  This  word,  it  is  thought,  gave  courage  to 
the  Italian  Liberals,  and  before  the  end  of  the  year,  Menotti, 
Mazzini  and  their  party  had  stirred  up  another  revolution.7 
The  Austrian  troops  again  crossed  the  border,  while  Metter- 
nich  once  more  explained  this  action  by  saying  that  they  had 


Memoran- 
dum de  Casi- 

mir  Perier 
sur  l'occupa- 
tion 

d' An  cone 


Dep.  Off. 
Xo.  75 


Memoran- 
dum 
C.  Perier 


d'Hausson- 
ville  Hist., 
I,  32  et  seq 


v.  Moniteur, 
18-20  Juillet, 

183 1 
Journal  des 
Debate, 
19  Juillet, 
1831 


7  A  propos  of  Perier's  remarks  (December  2)  Metternich  is  said  to 
have  commented:  "C'est  ce  mot  de  non-intervention  qui  a  donne  aux 
revolutionnaires  Italiens  le  courage  de  tenter  la  fortune."  Bourgeois 
III  68. 

"The  reports  from  Tenera,  Modena,  Florence  and  every  other  quarter, 
unanimously  give  expression  to  the  opinion  that  the  whole  Italian 
revolution  is  due  solely  to  the  action  of  the  Paris  committees  based 
on  the  assertion  of  the  principle  of  non-intervention."  Metternich 
Mem.  V.  to  Apponyi,  March  18,  183 1— Dep.  Off.  990. 


Moniteur, 
2  December, 
183 1 


55 


Metternich, 
V,  10  Few, 

1832 
Off.  Desp., 
1049.  I 


Dep.  Off., 
Xo.  69, 
31  Jan  v., 
1832 


Journal  des 

Debats, 
Feb.  15,  183 1 


Affaires  de 
Rome,  119 


Boutard,  II, 
313 


to  come  to  put  down  a  Bonapartist  uprising  near  the  frontier 
of  France-  There  can  be  no  doubt  but  that  he  was  trying 
to  discredit  the  French  in  general  as  well  as  to  show  in 
particular  the  weakness  of  the  July  Monarchy's  position  and 
policy.  His  instructions  to  his  own  ambassadors  bear  out 
this  impression.  In  reality,  he  was  already  active  in  discredit- 
ing France  at  the  Court  of  Rome  with  the  result  that  when 
the  French  troops  did  enter  Ancona  the  Pope  believed  that 
they  had  come  to  incite  rebellion. 

The  thirty-first  of  January  M.  Perier  had  sent  a  despatch 
to  M.  de  Barante,  ambassador  at  Turin,  announcing  the 
departure  of  a  detachment  for  Ancona ; 
"Monsieur  le  baron, 

I  have  just  received  the  despatch  with  which  you  have 
honoured  me,  telling  me  of  the  entrance  of  the  Austrians 
into  the  Romagna.  I  hasten  to  send  a  courier  to  M.  de 
Sainte-Aulaire  instructing  him  to  demand  the  cession  "de  la 
place  et  du  port"  of  Ancona  to  our  force,  of  land  and  sea ; 
a  measure  to  which  the  Court  of  Rome  has  already  actually 
acceded." 

This  is  a  curious  document,  for  it  presents  a  rather  inter- 
esting point.  Had  Gregory  XVI,  in  sympathy  with  the  "parti 
de  resistance,"  intimated  to  Sainte  Aulaire  his  consent  to  the 
French  occupation  of  Ancona?  Unfortunately,  as  far  as 
can  be  found,  there  are  only  a  few  facts  to  substantiate  this 
suggestion,  and  they  are  all  indirect  witnesses.  The  first 
is  the  condition  of  the  Papal  Department  of  State.  There 
had  never  existed  a  clearly  defined  understanding  between 
Gregory  XVI  and  Bernetti,  the  Papal  Secretary.  In  fact, 
throughout  the  Pontificate  of  Gregory,  the  Pope's  own  state- 
ments to  individuals  and  the  official  declarations  of  the  Roman 
Court  were  absolutely  contradictory,  and  seldom,  if  ever,  at 
one.  The  second  indication  of  the  existence  of  some  sort 
of  an  understanding  between  Louis  Philippe  and  the  Pope, 
is  the  fact  that  the  French  officers,  Gaullois  and  Combes, 
gained  access  to  the  citadel  of  Ancona  by  telling  the  comman- 
der that  they  had  come  with  the  consent  of  the  Pope.  All 


8V.  Metternich  to  Apponyi.  March  9,  1831,  Dep.  Off.  998.  Cf.  with 
later  reference.    Mem.  V. 


56 


histories  agree  on  this  point  and  are  corroborated  by  Casimir 

Perier's  memorandum.    The  third  piece  of  evidence  is  still 

more  indirect.    Shortly  afterwards  the  Pope  made  a  bargain 

with  the  Tsar;  in  return  for  his  advice  to  the  Poles  to 

submit,  the  Tsar  was  to  aid  Gregory  against  his  enemies. 

If  France  was  in  Ancona  without  authorization  why  did  not  ^^f0^' 

Gregory  call  upon  the  Austrians  to  put  them  out?    They  425 

would  have  been  only  too  delighted  to  have  done  so.  Why 

did  he  call  in  a  third  person,  unless  he  was  legally  impeded 

from  asking  Austria  to  oust  the  French?    The  reasonable 

inference,  it  seems,  is  that  the  Pope  tacitly  allowed  the  French 

to  enter  as  well  as  the  Austrians,  and  that  he  may  have 

verbally  communicated  this  decision  to  M.  de  Sante  Aulaire.  London 

The  French  troops  once  ensconced  in  Ancona,  Gregory  mildly  Times, 

protested,  but  to  no  avail,  and  by  the  arrangement  of  April  16,  Feb-  25>  l832 

1832,  it  was  agreed  that  the  French  should  remain  in  Ancona 

until  the  Austrians  had  evacuated  the  Legations.9 

What,  then,  was  the  result  of  this  complication?  From 
the  point  of  view  of  foreign  politics  it  did  not  strengthen 
the  position  of  the  French  government.  Metternich  had 
gained  his  end,  he  had  discredited  one  of  the  fundamental 
doctrines  of  the  July  Monarchy  and  displayed  its  shameless 
inconsistency.10 

This  opinion,  furthermore,  was  held  by  other  countries  as 
well.  So  it  was  that  by  the  Ancona  affair  Metternich  accom- 
plished the  first  step  in  his  twofold  plan  to  abolish  the  quasi- 

'The  troops  stayed  until  1838. 

10 "The  French  government  establishes  a  new  principle;  the  principle 
of  intervention  in  everything,  which  is  in  direct  contradiction  with 
the  principle  of  non-intervention,  which  has  been  the  political  pro- 
gramme of  France  since  1830.  If  non-intervention  was  folly,  the 
new  political  code  is  a  menace ;  neither  the  one  nor  the  other  will  ever 
acquire  the  force  of  law  in  the  Code  of  Xations. 

"The  French  circular,  however,  will  have  two  useful  results,  the 
first  is  the  inference  which  the  Italian  Liberals  will  draw  from  it,  that 
the  French  government  is  false  to  them  in  their  expectations;  the 
second  lies  in  the  fact  that  at  every  honourable  opportunity,  any  inde- 
pendent government  will  have  the  right  of  employing  it  for  its  own 
ends,  at  the  cost  of  those  who  first  enunciated  and  applied  the  principle 
in  all  its  attendant  consequences."  Metternich,  Mem.  V.  to  Apponyi. 
March  9,  1832,  Desp.  Off.  1033. 


57 


v.  London  liberal  appearances  Louis  Philippe  gave  himself  and  to  teach 
March\  tnat  monarch  tne  principles  of  Legitimacy,  or  else  if  he  failed, 
1832  in  the  former,  to  destroy  the  July  Monarchy  entirely.  Later 
he  wrote  to  Lutzow — ambassador  in  Rome — a  letter  which  is 
almost  the  proof  of  this  intention,  and  in  which  he  decries 
the  contradictory  character  of  the  July  Monarchy  and  the 
weakness  of  its  moral  and  material  calibre,  laid  bare  once 
again  by  the  Ancona  affair  to  which  it  had  nearly  succumbed.11 
Metternich's  plan  succeeded.  The  Ancona  fiasco  proved 
France's  worth — the  real  value  of  an  over-ambitious  pride 
and  of  a  too  eager  desire  for  military  glory.  Perier  too  had 
followed  the  middle  course  without  knowing  it,  and  in  France, 
B.  Sarrans,  at  least  for  a  time,  there  was  contentment.  The  Premier 
II,  301  nad  gained  his  point,  the  budget  was  passed — it  was  a  veri- 
table "coup  de  tete.''  But  this  distraction  of  Perier's  was 
to  have  few  results  and  subsequent  events  have  seemed  to 
show  that  France  gained  nothing  from  it.  This,  it  is  very 
likely,  had  been  the  real  purpose  of  Perier.  Ancona,  then, 
served  as  a  mere  distraction  and  it  was  a  dear  one  for  Louis 
Philippe.  One  base  of  his  monarchy  was  swept  from  under 
him,  while  the  liberals,  realizing  the  jingoism  of  the  entire 
affair,  became  more  enraged  than  ever  at  the  latest  loss  of 
credit  for  France  in  the  eyes  of  the  world.  The  Ancona 
policy  had  made  Austria  all  the  more  powerful  in  Rome,  while 
Metternich's  damning  assertions  increased  Gregory's  mild 
apprehension  of  the  French  to  the  point  of  actual  fear  and 
led  him  to  call  in  still  another  power  against  her.  It  proved 
a  mere  show  of  force  for  nothing.  Louis  Philippe  the  liberal 
king  was  one  step  nearer  his  conversion  to  a  "Bourbon  policy" 
through  the  blindness  of  his  ministers  to  Metternich's  tactics. 
And,  "a  Bourbon"  policy  was  one  of  the  predecessors  of  his 
fall. 

11  "The  Ancona  affair  is  the  logical  expression  of  the  golden  mean, 
that  doctrine  which  always  couples  a  vast  amount  of  the  thought- 
lessness with  a  grain  of  reason,  a  want  of  consideration  with  an 
affirmation.  This  affair  is  the  symptom  of  the  malady  which  is  ravaging 
the  world ;  it  proves,  by  the  clearest  evidence,  what  are  the  real 
tendencies  of  situations  abounding  in  contradictions ;  lastly,  it  gages 
the  moral  and  material  calibre  of  the  'government  of  the  glorious 
days'  and  proves  what  the  authority  of  the  powers  really  amounts  to." 
Metternich,  Mem.  v.  to  Lutzow,  April  3,  1832,  Off.  Desp.  1054. 

58 


There  was  also  another  sense  in  which  Perier  was  to  gain 
and  France  to  lose,  and  this  was  the  effect  of  the  Ancona  situa- 
tion on  the  Liberal  Roman  Catholic  Movement,  as  represented 
by  La  Mennais,  Montalembert  and  Lacordaire  who  had  reached 
Rome.  The  situation  just  discussed  has  shown  what  Powers  £™ 
were  the  most  influential  at  the  Court  of  Rome,  those  very 
States  that  had  tried  so  hard  to  discredit  France  in  the  eyes 
of  the  Pope  and  to  maintain  the  continuance  of  a  reactionary 
policy  in  Italy,  and  to  whose  eyes  the  principles  of  the  Holy 
Alliance  seemed  sacred.  How  did  these  influential  Powers 
look  upon  La  Mennais?  He  seemed  to  them  the  reincarna- 
tion of  the  Ancona  policy  in  another  sphere.  Austria,  of 
course,  by  its  very  position  was  opposed  to  I 'Avenir  and  its 
views.  What  could  Metternich,  the  very  embodiment  of  two 
ancient  principles,  Legitimacy  and  the  Temporal  Power  of  the 
Papacy,  have  in  common  with  La  Mennais,  the  champion 
of  a  Republicanism  hateful  to  the  old  regime  and  the  ad- 
vocate of  an  Ultromontanism  utterly  incomprehensible  to  the 
men  of  the  Ancient  Regime  ?  The  same  question  may  be  asked 
of  the  king  of  Prussia,  who  sought  to  subordinate  religion  to 
a  state  affair  and  in  whose  eyes  Doellinger  and  the  Round 
Table  found  but  little  favour.  .  As  for  the  Tsar  of  Russia, 
his  attitude  to  Louis  Philippe  is  well  known.  He  disliked 
the  Frenchmen  of  the  July  Revolution,  and  it  may  well  be 
imagined  how  much  more  he  would  hate  La  Mennais  who 
not  only  professed  liberal  ideas  but  sought  to  put  them  to 
practical  use  as  well;  a  Republican  who  must,  then,  agree 
with  LaFayette's  speech  on  Poland,  an  Ultramontane  who 
could  not  favour  the  diminished  authority  of  Rome  in  Poland 
due  to  its  submission  to  Russian  power.  With  this  in  mind 
it  is  not  surprising  to  read  that  La  Mennais  and  his  two 
friends  were  preceded  to  Rome  by  diplomatic  notes  from 
these  three  powers  advising  the  Pope  to  condemn  once  and 
for  all  those  revolutionaries  who  sought  to  preach  revolt  in 
the  name  of  religion.  But,  this  charge  was  unjust,  and  how 
selfish  their  attitude!  For,  after  all,  where  can  it  be  shown 
that  La  Mennais  or  his  school  ever  preached  revolt  from  the 
Papacy  to  the  Italian  Liberals?  They  had  written  in  favour 
of  changes  in  Belgium,  Poland,  Germany,  and  Ireland,  but 


Affaires  de 
15-16, 
Boutard, 
II,  284 


I' Avenir, 
30  Aout, 
183 1 


l' Avenir, 
Mars,  1831 


it  is  difficult  to  see  just  where  any  direct  attack  on  Italy  or 
against  the  Pope  was  made.  Had  the  Powers  founded  their 
charge  upon  any  substantial  facts,  they  might,  with  a  certain 
amount  of  reason,  have  warned  the  Pope.  But  they  did  not 
trouble  even  to  search  for  evidence,  they  merely  made  the 
charge  and  were  listened  to,  if  not  by  Gregory  XVI  himself, 
at  least  by  Bernetti,  his  secretary  of  State.  Once  only  had 
VAvenir  shown  itself  at  all  severe  in  the  discussion  of 
events  in  Italy.  This  was  a  propos  of  the  amnesty  granted 
in  183 1  by  Gregory  XVI  to  the  rebellious  liberals,  when  a 
criticism  of  this  action  appeared  in  the  journal  and  concluded: 
"en  un  mot,  toutes  les  regies  de  la  justice  criminelle  sont 
oubliees  dans  cet  acte,  qui,  grace  a  Dieu,  emane  du  pro- 
secretaire  d'£tat,  ministre  du  prince  temporel  et  non  du  chef 
des  chretiens."12  In  interpreting  this  comment  to  the  Pontiff 
in  the  light  of  a  rebellious  and  overbold  criticism  the  Powers 
must  have  forgotten  that  they  had  displayed  their  own  dis- 
approval and  doubt  as  to  the  efficacy  of  Papal  politics  when 
at  Paris  they  tried  to  nominate  a  power  that  should  enforce 
the  Pope's  will.13  What  La  Mennais  had  hoped  for  in  Italy 
was  a  liberal  revolution  which  would  end  in  its  unification, 

Ibid.  under  the  Pope  himself.  "Purer  hands  than  yours  must  lay 
the  foundation  of  liberty  in  a  country,"  were  the  words 
addressed  to  the  Italian  Liberals.14 

But  it  was  not  only  with  diplomatic  notes  from  these  powers 
that  the  Court  of  Rome  was  besieged.  Charges  came  from 
France  as  well;  from  the  emigres  in  Italy  and  from  a  govern - 

[l^Sfy '  ment  in  France  that  displayed  unmistakable  "resistance"  sym- 
pathy and  therefore  was  more  amenable  to  the  extreme 
conservatives  some  of  whom  were  Carlists.  It  is  to  be  remem- 
bered that  Casimir  Perier  had  been  praised  by  V  Ami  de  la 
Religion  et  du  roi.  Cardinal  de  Rohan  was  the  leader  of  the 
Carlist  party  at  Rome.  He  was  a  strong  Legitimist  and  there- 
fore, a  member  of  the  "petite  figlise."  His  first  admiration  for 
La  Mennais  soon  died  down  when  he  found  VAvenir  unwilling 
to  support  "this  little  prince"  as  he  called  Charles  X.  Still 

UV. ;  also  VAvenir  Mars  1831. 
18  Memorandum  de  C.  Perier,  etc. 
14  V.  Affaires  de  Rome,  16-17. 


60 


another  enemy  was  Cardinal  Lambruschini,  an  Austrian.  Per- 
haps the  most  powerful  yet  least  evident  opponents  of  La 
Mennais,  however,  were  the  Jesuits.  Their  animosity  dates 
from  the  publication  of  "Des  Progres  de  la  Revolution  et  de  la 
guerre  contre  l'Eglise,"  and  it  had  increased  as  La  Mennais 
developed  still  further  his  thesis  of  the  freedom  of  the  indi- 
vidual will.  All  these  were  La  Mennais'  enemies,  and  with  one 
voice  they  demanded  of  the  Pope  the  condemnation  of  the 
innovators. 

To  the  unbiased  observer  the  Pope's  position  at  this  time, 
and  even  his  subsequent  actions,  are  easily  understood.  And, 
he  should  not  be  judged  too  harshly;  Gregory  XVI  was  bound 
by  the  action  of  centuries.  Rebellion  in  his  own  States,  rebel- 
lion threatening  in  all  Catholic  countries,  two  foreign  armies 
in  two  of  his  citadels ;  Austria,  for  one,  he  trusted  but  feared 
she  would  go  to  extremes,  while  of  the  sincerity  of  France, 
he  felt  uncertain.  And  behind  all  this  there  remained  the  sov- 
ereigns of  the  Catholic  States,  the  only  rulers  in  whom  he 
might  place  his  confidence,  advising  him  to  condemn  this  auda- 
cious liberal  sprung  himself  from  a  country  whose  king  was  v;  Apostolic 

1    •  .  .         ,  ,.  •  r     •  Letters  of 

of  revolutionary  origin  and  whose  religious  professions  were  Gregory 

none  too  orthodox  in  the  eyes  of  the  Roman  Congregation.  _.xvJ^ni/. 

a  ,1  ,        1  •  -i      i  .  •  i     11  •  •      i     i  i  PU1S  IX-  w- 

All  these  things  considered,  it  is  hardly  surprising  that  he  acted 

as  he  did,  and  he  should  not  be  too  heavily  censured  for  his 

actions.    Gregory  XVI  was  not  a  great  theologian  nor  a  great 

savant ;  his  letters  show  this ;  he  was  not  a  tyrant  nor  a  proud 

pontiff,  and  above  all  he  was  singularly  inexperienced.  This 

inexperience  and  the  knowledge  of  it,  meeting  with  the  more  Boutard, 

II  '?72 

subtle  character  of  Bernetti,  could  not  but  give  rise  to  a  certain 
defiance  and  stubbornness  which  was  more  of  a  shield  to  a 
weak  character  than  an  evidence  of  great  resolution  and 
strength.  Furthermore,  it  seems,  that  Metternich  was  supreme 
in  Rome  at  this  moment,  and  it  is  not  at  all  unlikely  that  the 
Pope  may  have  shared  in  the  general  opinion  the  Austrian  had 
spread  in  Rome;  that  the  "Monarchy  of  the  Glorious  Days" 
was  weak — witness  the  Ancona  affair — and  might  fall  at  any 
time.  With  all  this  in  mind,  it  is  not  unreasonable  to  suppose 
that  Gregory  XVI  had  decided  it  would  be  better  to  rid  Catho- 
lic France  of  all  these  liberals  at  once,  in  the  hope  that  when  the 


6i 


change  took  place  and  France  returned  again  to  the  fold,  she 
might  have  as  few  of  these  liberals  as  possible  to  deal  with ; 
now  to  silence  them  once  and  for  all.  Moreover,  if  Gregory 
had  approved  La  Mennais'  doctrines,  could  he  have  sanctioned 
them  at  this  time  ?  This  seems  doubtful,  for  to  have  sanction- 
ed one  word  of  them  would  doubtless  have  plunged  Europe 
into  the  worst  civil  war  she  had  yet  experienced.  In  practically 
every  country  there  was  discontentment,  and  the  slightest  sign 
of  approval  might  easily  have  thrown  open  the  gates  of  every 
Capital  to  revolution.  It  is  true,  the  restive  districts  had  been 
quieted  but  this  had  been  done  in  many  places  in  the  name  of 
religion  and  the  Holy  Alliance.  Even  the  tacit  recognition  of 
such  principles  might  easily  have  added  the  necessary  spark  to 
the  inflammable  condition  of  Europe  and  caused  a  terrific  out- 
burst of  revolutionary  enthusiasm.  The  question  arises,  then, 
if  the  editors  had  not  demanded  an  answer,  would  their  doc- 
trines have  been  condemned?  This  again  seems  doubtful  and 
may  explain  the  hesitating  policy  the  Roman  Curia  adopted  in 
regard  to  the  whole  affair.  Even  La  Mennais  seemed  to  have 
realized  this  fact,  but  too  late.15 

But,  the  editors  of  VAvenir  had  demanded  the  voice  of 
Rome,  and  after  a  wait  of  six  months  it  was  to  come  to  them. 
In  the  meantime  their  patience  was  to  be  tried  by  petty  ex- 
cuses, formalities  and  procrastinations.  "Fear  is  the  greatest 
enemy  you  have  here  in  Rome,"  one  prelate  is  said  to  have  re- 
marked to  La  Mennais.  And  commenting  on  this  remark,  La 
Mennais  added :  "He  was  mistaken ;  I  believe  it  was  political 
interests."16 

From  the  very  outset  the  two  younger  members  of  the  "Pil- 
grimage" seemed  to  have  realized  the  utter  hopelessness  of 
their  cause,  but  La  Mennais  did  not  perceive  the  actual  state  of 
affairs  until  much  later,  not,  in  fact,  until  June  when  the  Pope 
issued  his  bull  to  the  bishops  of  Poland — a  veritable  premoni- 
tion of  the  fate  awaiting  VAvenir.  One  thing,  however,  La 
Mennais  did  perceive  and  that  was  the  actual  decadence  of  the 

""Affaires  de  Rome,"  p.  7:  "Furthermore,  it  is  certain  that  if,  less 
influenced  by  an  overscrupulous  delicacy  they  had  scorned  so  many 
unworthy  attacks  and  continued  so  courageously  their  work,  no  act 
of  authority  would  have  intervened  to  interrupt  them." 

J*  v.  Giraud,  lettre,  10  Avril  1832.  "Affaires  de  Rome,"  38. 


62 


Church  in  the  city  of  its  founding.  This  fact  made  a  deep 
impression  on  him,  but,  oddly  enough,  it  also  served  to  con- 
vince him  that  his  views  were  right  and  would  be  accepted.17 
If,  on  the  other  hand,  they  are  neglected  the  Papacy  will 
thereby  have  refused  the  last  means  of  salvation  offered  it. 

The  subsequent  actions  of  the  Papacy  seemed  to  bear  out 
these  observations.  The  three  pilgrims  had  an  interview  with 
the  Pope,  but  with  the  express  understanding  that  the  real 
purpose  of  their  visit  to  Rome  should  not  be  discussed.  La 
Mennais  was  much  encouraged  by  the  reception  given  him  by 
Gregory  XVI,  despite  the  restriction  which  must  have  irritated 
him.  Furthermore,  his  hopes  were  raised  from  time  to  time 
by  the  statements  of  cetain  prelates — particularly  Cardinal  Mi- 
cara,  who  is  said  to  have  expressed  in  no  dubious  terms  his 
thorough  approval  of  the  Liberal  Catholics'  policy.18  But  the 
continued  silence  of  the  Court  puzzled  the  three  liberals,  and 
they  finally  decided  to  force  an  answer.  Accordingly  they  set 
to  work  to  compose  a  "Memoire"  for  the  Pope.  When  this  was 
completed  (3  Fevrier  1832)  it  was  given  to  Cardinal  Pacca  who 
agreed  to  present  it  to  Gregory  XVI.  The  "Memoire"  was  a 
frank  exposition  of  the  doctrines  and  policy  of  VAvenir  from 

"J'espere  que  mon  sejour  a  Rome  ne  se  prolongera  pas  desormais 
longtemps,  et  l'un  des  plus  beaux  jours  de  ma  vie  sera  celui-ci  ou  je 
sortirai  de  ce  grand  tombeau,  ou  Ton  ne  trouve  que  des  vers  et  des 
ossements."  Corresp.  ed.  Forgues,  10  Fevrier  1832. 

Later  he  writes :  "Le  Pope  est  un  homme  pieux,  conduit  par  les 
hommes  qui  ne  le  sont  guere,  et  qui  se  preoccupent  uniquement  des 
interets  temporels,  qu'ils  n'entendent  pas.  lis  fondent  toutes  leurs 
esperances  sur  les  baionnettes  des  puissances  ennemies  de  l'eglise,  et,  en 
consequence  cette  eglise  leur  est  sacrinee  sans  hesitations.  Les  gens  de 
bien  gemissent  et  s'indignent.  lis  pre-voient  de  grands  chatimens,  des 
catastrophes  prochains,  desquelles  Dieu  fera  sortir  le  remede  des  maux 
extremes  qu'ils  deplorent  et  qui  desormais  ne  peuvent  etre  gueris  que 
par  l'intervention  immediate  de  Dieu.  II  n'y  a  plus  de  Papaute ;  il 
faut  qu'elle  renaisse  ou  l'eglise  et  le  monde  periraient.  Voila  l'etat 
des  choses."    v.  Giraud  Une  Corresp.  ed.  10  Avril  1832. 

"Boutard  (II.  315)  quotes  a  letter  from  La  Mennais  to  M.  de  Coux 
in  which  L.  repeats  the  remarks  of  the  Cardinal :  "Vous  etes  venus 
a  Rome  pour  demander  que  Ton  condamnat  vos  doctrines  si  elles 
renfermaient  quelque  chose  de  condamnable ;  vous  avez  fait  cette  de- 
mande  de  vive  voix,  et  par  ecrit;  on  ne  les  a  pas  condamnees,  done 
elles  ne  sont  pas  condamnables.  Recommencez  VAvenir;  e'est  ce  que 
je  ferai  a  votre  place." 

63 


the  very  beginning,  and  in  it  the  writers  tried  to  explain  and 
refute  the  charge  of  being  political  revolutionaries — a  charge 
brought  by  the  Carlist  interests  at  Rome.  The  first  part  was 
taken  up  with  the  description  of  the  position  of  the  neo-catho- 
lics  in  1830  when  they  had  two,  and  only  two  courses  open  to 
them,  either  to  become  a  political  faction  under  the  govern- 
ment and  gain  power  that  way,  or  else  to  fight  for  it  openly, 
the  healthiest  and  safest  way.19  Equally  apt  is  their  description 
of  the  July  Monarchy's  attitude  to  religion  and  the  efforts 
made  to  stifle  it  by  gradually  rendering  it  more  servile  to  the 
State.20 

The  rest  of  the  "Memoire"  is  a  defense  of  their  doctrines, 
showing  first  that  no  canon  or  apostolic  tradition  exists  against 
the  separation  of  Church  and  State,  that  the  Roman  Catholic 
Faith  is  not  incompatible  with  the  liberty  of  religious  denom- 
inations (Cultes),  freedom  of  instruction,  of  the  press  or  with 
any  form  of  constitutional  government.  The  "Memoire"  pre- 
sents in  a  concise  and  convincing  form  the  proof  of  the  good 
done  by  I'Avenir  and  the  Agence  in  matters  of  faith,  conver- 
sion and  religious  indifference.  In  conclusion,  the  authors 
speak  of  their  enemies  in  the  following  terms;  (this  paragraph 
is  interesting  as  a  portrait  of  the  conditions  existing  in  France 
at  the  end  of  the  first  Liberal  Catholic  Movement)  : 

"To  explain  this  curious  situation  it  is  necessary  to  go  back 
to  the  causes  of  the  opposition  encountered  by  the  editors  of 

19  "II  n'y  avait  evidement  que  deux  parties  a  prendre;  011  s'en  tenir 
au  systeme  de  la  Restauration  ou  l'alliance  indissoluble  du  trone  et  de 
l'autel,  a  la  solidarite  de  l'un  et  de  l'autre,  ou  renoncer  a  ce  systeme 
et  separer,  autant  qu'l  etait  possible  deux  causes  dont  l'union  avait  ete 
si  malheureuse.  .  .  .  Suivre  ce  premier  systeme  de  conduit  etait  done 
abandonner  l'eglise  au  hasard  dans  un  moment  decisif  pour  elle ;  et,  en 
supportant  des  esperances  douteuses  realisees  meme  dans  un  court 
delai,  e'etait  l'attendre  son  salut  cela  meme,  qui  avait  fait  sa  perte 
pendant  seize  ans."  Mem.  Presentee  Para.  II. 
Memoire  20  "La  Revolution  de  1830  avait  ete  faite  autant  contre  l'eglise  que 
1vSancf  V  contre  *a  couronne>  et  H  etait  impossible  qu'il  en  fut  autrement  a  cause 
de  leur  intime  alliance.  Le  gouvernement  sorti  de  cette  revolution, 
devait,  done  etre  hostile  a  l'eglise ;  mais  il  n'avait  le  choix  comme  nous 
l'avons  dit,  qu'entre  une  persecution  ouverte  et  un  asservissement 
VII  an  Progressif  et  complet.  II  choisit  la  derniere  mode  comme  moins 
hasardeuse;  et  parce  qu'il  voulait  en  toutes  choses  conserver  au  moins 
les  apparences  de  l'ordre  anterieur."    Mem.  Pres.  Para.  III. 

64 


VAvenir.  Of  these,  two  are  of  prime  importance;  one  political, 
the  other  theological.  When  the  partisans  of  the  dethroned 
Bourbons  saw  a  newspaper  appearing  that  defended  religion 
without  defending  the  old  dynasty,  that  even  tried  frankly  to 
combat  the  faults  of  the  Restoration,  they  persuaded  themselves 
that  its  editors  might  become  serious  obstacles  to  their  designs. 
They  feared  that  their  own  cause  might  lose  the  support  of  the 
clergy,  and  as  this  support  seemed  essential  to  them  they  set  to 
work  to  ruin  VAvenir  with  all  the  energy  and  all  the  eagerness 
that  parties  employ  in  order  to  remove  an  obstacle  to  their  own 
progress.  .  .  .  On  the  other  side,  although  dogmatic  Gallican- 
ism  had  been  destroyed  in  France  in  the  great  majority  of 
cases  yet  there  still  existed  traces  of  it ;  and,  in  addition,  practi- 
cal Gallicanism,  that  is  the  long  usage  of  a  social  order  founded 
on  the  Gallican  theory,  made  it  that  even  those  who  had  logic- 
ally sacrificed  the  principle  still  lived  under  the  empire  of  things 
that  it  had  created.  Then  too,  the  separation  of  Church  and 
State  attacked  this  practical  Gallicanism.  It  was,  in  brief,  the 
setting  into  action  of  Roman  doctrines  in  a  society  where  con- 
trary doctrines  had  only  just  recently  perished  after  a  contro- 
versy lasting  ten  years." 

This,  in  substance,  was  the  nature  of  the  exposition  of  their 
doctrines  presented  by  FAveni/s  editors  to  the  Pope.  It  now  Mem.  para., 
remained  for  it  to  be  put  through  an  apparent  examination  and  VIII 
then  there  was  a  long  delay.  On  the  9th  of  June,  however, 
Gregory  XVI  issued  his  encyclical  to  the  Bishops  of  Poland 
advising  submission  to  the  temporal  power  of  the  Tsar.  This, 
as  has  been  said,  came  about  as  an  exchange  for  the  Tsar's 
promise  of  assistance  against  his  enemies  to  Gregory.  One 
phrase  of  this  letter  was  interpreted  as  a  warming  to  La 
Mennais  and  his  followers : 

"In  this  cause  you  must  use  all  diligence  to  be  sure  to  pre- 
vent evil-minded  men  and  innovators  from  continuing  to  spread 
their  false  doctrines  and  erroneous  theories,  from  endangering 
the  common  welfare  as  they  have  done  heretofore  by  taking 
advantage  of  the  credulity  of  simple-minded  folk,  who,  not 
having  been  cautioned,  are  unconsciously  becoming  blind  in- 
struments to  trouble  the  peace  of  this  realm  and  to  upset  the 
established  order  of  Society." 


65 


The  above  paragraph  left  little  doubt  in  the  minds  of  La 
Mennais'  harshest  critics  as  well  as  his  greatest  friends,  where 
the  Papacy  stood  in  regard  to  I'Avenir  and  its  influence.  It 
even  seems  to  have  warned  La  Mennais  that  he  need  expect 
little  or  no  encouragement  from  Rome.  And  so  it  was  that 
accompanied  by  Montalembert,  for  Lacordaire  before  this  time 
had  left  them,  La  Mennais  went  to  Munich  where  he  was  cor- 
dially received  by  the  Round  Table.  Hardly,  however,  had  he 
left  Rome  when  the  Protest  of  Toulouse  arrived.  It  was  a 
petition  signed  by  the  prelates  of  the  "Midi,"  urging  an  imme- 
diate condemnation.  So  Gregory  XVI,  influenced  by  the 
bishops  of  the  "Midi,"  the  Carlists  in  France  and  Rome,  the 
three  conservative  sovereigns  of  Europe,  and  alarmed,  per- 
haps, by  the  assertion  La  Mennais  is  said  to  have  made  that, 
not  having  received  any  order  to  the  contrary  he  would  return 
and  resume  his  work  in  France,  was  forced  to  act.  On  the  15th 
of  August,  1832,  the  famous  Encyclical  "Mirari  Vos"  appeared 
and  sounded  the  death-knell  of  the  first  Liberal  Catholic  Move- 
ment in  France.  In  this  document  the  Pope  condemned  every 
doctrine  of  YAvenir  except  that  of  the  absolute  independence 
of  the  Church  from  civil  authority.  Almost  at  the  outset  the 
Encyclical  indignantly  denies  that  the  Church  has  any  need 
to  be  restored  (regenere'e) .  Thus  at  the  very  beginning  the 
proof  of  La  Mennais'  fatal  move  at  the  first  trial  is  established, 
and  the  great  extent  of  influence  exerted  by  Ami  de  la  Religion 
et  dn  roi  and  its  adherents,  the  Carlists,  affirmed.21    In  the 

21  "Cum  autem  ut  Tridentinorum  Patrum  verbis  utamur,  constet 
Ecclesiam  eruditam  fuisse  a  Christo  Jesu,  ejusque  Apostolis,  atque  a 
Spiritu  Sancto  illi  omnem  veritatem  in  dies  suggerente  edoceri,  ab- 
surdum  plane  est,  ac  maxime  in  earn  injuriosum,  rcstaurationcm  ac 
regenerationem  quandam  obtrudi  quasi  necessariam,  ut  ejus  incolu- 
mitati,  et  incremento,  consulatur,  perinde  ac  si  censeri  ipsa  possit  vel 
defectui,  vel  obscurationi,  vel  aliis  hujuscemodi  incommodis  obnoxia ; 
quo  quidem  molimine  eo  spectant  novatores,  ut  recentis  humanae  insti- 
tutionis  jaciantur  fundamenta,  illud  que  ipsum  eveniat  quod  detestatur 
Cyprianus.  ut  quae  divina  res  humana  fiat  ecclesia  :  (since  it  has  been 
proved,  to  quote  the  fathers  of  Trent,  that  the  Church  is  instructed 
by  Jesus  Christ  and  his  Apostles  and  that  she  was  taught  by  the  Holy 
Spirit  who  suggested  to  her  every  truth,  it  is  absurd  as  well  as  ex- 
tremely offensive  to  her  that  anyone  should  advocate  as  essential  to 
her  duration  and  increase  any  restoration  or  reform;  as  if  she  could 
be  delivered  or  exposed  to  weakness,  blindness,  or  any  other  failings 

66 


next  paragraph  Gregory  refutes  La  Mennais'  idea  of  the  con- 
dition of  indifference  in  matters  religious,  its  cause,  and  also 
the  thesis  of  liberty  of  conscience.22  This,  in  turn,  is  followed 
by  the  condemnation  of  many  of  those  political  concessions 
which  La  Mennais  through  VAvenir  had  advocated,  among 
them,  the  liberty  of  the  press.23  The  next  paragraph  is  inter- 
esting, for  it  betrays  the  influences  at  work  in  the  Papal  Court 
as  well  as  the  real  motives  at  their  base.  It  was  the  paragraph 
demanded  by  the  rulers  of  Austria,  Prussia  and  Russia,  and 
the  government  of  France,  a  command  to  the  people  to  obey 
the  civil  authority  conferred  on  their  superiors  by  Divine 
Law — and  to  cease  to  consider  the  dangerous  works  on  liberty 
at  that  time  so  much  in  evidence.24  But,  the  people  once  in  sub- 

of  such  a  kind."  Mirari  vos — Gregorius  XVI.,  XVIII.  Kalendis  Sep- 
tembris  die  solemni  assumptions,  B.  V.  Mariae,  anno  Dominicae  in- 
carnationis  MDCCCXXXII,  Pontificatus  nostri  anno  II. 

22  ''Atque  ex  hoc  putidissimo  indifferentismi  fonte  absurda  ilia  fluit 
ac  erronea  sententia,  seu  potius  deliremantum,  asserandam  esse  ac 
vindicandam  cuilibet  libertatem  conscientiae."  ("And  from  this  equally 
shameful  source  springs  that  ridiculous  and  wrong  idea,  or  rather 
madness,  that  freedom  of  conscience  should  be  defended  and  insisted 
upon  by  any  and  all.")    Mirari  vos — Gregoribus  XVI.,  etc. 

83  "Cum  autem  circumlatis  in  vulgus  scriptis  doctrinas  quasdam 
promulgari  acceperimus,  quibus  debita  erga  principes  fides  atque 
submissio  labefactatur,  facesque  perduellionis  ubique  incenduntur;  caven- 
dum  maxime  erit,  ne  populi  inde  decepti  a  recti  semita  adducantur. 
Animadvertant  omnes,  non  esse,  juxta  apostoli  monitum,  potestatem 
nisi  a  Deo ;  quae  autem  sunt  a  Deo  ordinatae  sunt.  Itaque  qui  resistit 
protestati  Dei  ordinationi  resistit  et  qui  resistunt  ipsi  sibi  damnationem 
acquirunt.  Quo  circa  et  divina  et  humana  jura  in  eos  clamant,  qui  tur- 
pissimi  perduellionis  seditionumque  machinationibus  a  fide  in  principes 
desisciere  ipsosque  ab  imperio  deturbare  connituntur."  ("Since  it  has 
come  to  our  knowledge  that  certain  works  have  been  distributed  among 
the  people  advocating  the  very  doctrines  subversive  to  the  fidelity  and 
submission  due  to  princes,  and  light  everywhere  torches  of  revolt,  it  is 
most  necessary  that  you  see  to  it  that  the  people  do  not  surmount  the 
bounds  of  their  duties.  They  should  remember  that,  according  to  the 
words  of  the  apostle,  'There  is  no  power  which  is  not  of  God.'  There- 
fore, he  who  resists  that  power,  resists  God  and  those  who  resist 
God  do  so  to  their  own  condemnation.  Therefore  both  divine  and 
human  law  is  against  those  who  attempt  to  overstep  by  civil  plots  of 
sedition  and  revolt,  the  duty  of  fidelity  to  their  princes,  and  who  try 
to  dethrone  them.")    Mirari  vos — Gregorus  XVI.,  etc. 

2i  "Neque  laetoria  et  religioni  et  principatui  ominari  possemus.  ex  eorum 


67 


mission  to  their  rulers,  must  not  think  of  separating  the  Church 
from  the  Temporal  Power  to  whom  they  are  subjected.25 

Having  completed  his  condemnation  of  the  doctrines  of  La 
Mennais,  the  Encyclical  then  considers  the  work  of  La  Men- 
nais  and  his  school  YAvenir,  to  be  sure,  but  more  especially  the 
Agence  and  all  similar  organizations  in  other  countries  as  well. 
They  are  condemned  as  hotbeds  of  error  and  of  revolution.25 
In  conclusion,  the  Pope  refers  to  La  Mennais  and  his  school  in 
the  following  paragraph : 

"Embracing  in  your  paternal  affection  all  those  who  are 

occupied  in  ecclesiastical  sciences  and  religious  questions;  be- 
Miran   vos  °  ^ 

Gregorius,    seech  them  constantly  not  to  rely  overmuch  on  their  own  intel- 

XVI,  etc.    Hgence,  which  would  take  them  far  from  the  way  of  truth  and 

would  lead  them  into  the  way  of  impiety.    May  they  remember 

that  God  is  the  way  of  all  knowledge  and  the  chastiser  of  the 

wise,  and  that  we  cannot  know  God  without  God  who  teaches 

us  by  His  word  to  know  God.    It  is  for  the  proud  and  foolish 

votis,  qui  Ecclesiam  a  regno  separari,  mutuamque  imperii  cum  sacer- 
dotio  concordiam  abrumpti  dispiciunt.  Constat  quippe  pertimesci  ab 
impudentissimae  libertatis  amatoribus  concordiam  illam,  quae  semper 
rei  et  sacrae  et  civili  fausta  exstitit  ac  salutaris."  ("We  could  not  for- 
bode  anything  more  happily  for  religion  and  for  the  nations,  in 
following  the  wishes  of  those  who  deny  a  separation  of  Church  and 
State,  than  the  mutual  concord  of  empire  and  priesthood.  For  it  is 
certain  that  this  accord,  so  favourable  both  to  religion  and  to  civil 
authority  in  other  times  is  the  thing  most  feared  by  these  relentless 
partisans  of  a  limitless  liberty.").    Mirari  vos — Gregorus  XVI,  etc. 

25  "Et  ad  caeteras  acerbissimas  causas  quibus  solliciti  sumus,  et  in 
communi  discrimine  dolore  quodam  angimur  praecipuo,  accessere  con- 
sociationes  quaedam,  statique  coetus,  quibus,  quasi  agmine  facto  cum 
cuius-cumque  etiam  falsae  religionis  ac  cultus  sectatoribus,  simulata 
quidem  in  religionem  pietate,  vere  tamen  novitatis,  seditionemque  ubique 
promovendarum  cupidine,  libertas  omnis  generis  praedicatur,  per- 
turbationes  in  sacram  et  civilem  rem  excitantur,  sanctior  qualibet  auctori- 
tas  discerpitur."  ("And  in  addition  to  other  reasons  with  which  we 
are  troubled  and  also  afflicted  with  grief  in  an  unusual  degree,  there 
have  arisen  certain  associations  and  rlxed  assemblies,  in  which  a  martial 
spirit  and  liberty  of  every  sort  is  proclaimed ;  along  with  the  follow- 
ers of  every  cult  and  every  false  religion,  under  a  pretense  of  respect 
for  religion,  to  be  sure,  but  really  because  of  a  desire  for  a  change  and 
for  promoting  revolutions  everywhere  they  excite  grievances  against 
the  good  of  the  Church  and  the  State,  they  destroy  the  most  respec- 
table authority.")     Mirari  vos,  etc. 

68 


to  weigh  in  a  mortal  made  balance  the  mysteries  of  the  Faith 
which  passes  all  understanding,  and  to  rely  on  our  own  reason, 
which  is  weak  and  helpless  because  of  the  state  of  human 
nature." 

Such,  in  paraphrase,  was  the  document  that  put  an  end  to  the 
first  Liberal  Catholic  Movement  in  France  and  what  a  contrast 
it  is  to  the  "Acte  d'Union"  promulgated  by  that  party!  The 
Encyclical  Mirari  Vos  might  be  called  the  final  protest  of  The 
Middle  Ages,  condemning  all  those  principles  so  dear  to  the 
men  of  to-day  and  all  of  which  found  birth  in  the  Liberal 
Romanticism  of  the  nineteenth  century.  It  is  true,  similar 
doctrines  had  come  to  light  before,  but  at  a  time  when  they  . 

•  '11        TM  oaintc 

appeared  in  a  form  too  exaggerated  and  too  impracticable,    the  Beuve, 
Liberal  Romanticism  of  the  early  Nineteenth  Century,  then,  Re^eu^es 
was  a  rebirth  of  these  very  same  doctrines  in  a  wiser  and  more  Mondes, 
reasonable  form;  and,  curiously  enough,  La  Mennais,  became  Vo1-  5,  1832 
the  precursor  of  Modern  Realism,  political,  literary  and  relig- 
ious ;  indeed,  as  one  of  his  greatest  contemporaries  has  said  he 
was  not  of  his  age,  he  was  a  generation  and  more  in  advance. 

La  Mennais  and  Montalembert  joined  by  Lacordaire  at  Mu- 
nich, received  the  news  of  their  condemnation  in  that  city 
which  had  thrown  wide  its  gates  to  receive  them.  And,  it  did 
not  desert  them  in  their  hour  of  need.  Accompanying  the  bull 
was  a  letter  from  Cardinal  Pacca  that  was  intended  to  lighten 
the  weight  of  the  blow.  It  recommended  submission  and  at- 
tempted to  show  them,  in  a  kindly  fashion,  where  they  had 
gone  too  far.26  But  the  three  did  not  need  this  advice,  they  had 
sworn  submission  and  they  kept  the  promise.  On  their  return 
to  France,  I'Avenir  was  abandoned  and  the  "Agence"  with  all 
its  brilliant  and  noble  aims  was  dissolved.  The  editors  seemed 
to  be  resigned  to  their  fate.27 

^"Elle  (so  saintete)  a  ete  beaucoup  afflige  de  voir  que  les  redacteurs 
aient  pris  sur  eux  de  discuter  en  presence  du  public  et  de  decider  les 
questions  les  plus  dedicates,  qui  appartiennent  au  gouvernement  de 
l'eglise  et  de  son  chef  supreme,  d'ou  a  resulte  necessairement  la  per- 
turbation dans  les  esprits  et  surtout  parmi  le  clerge  lequel  est  tou- 
jours  nuisible  aux  fideles."  Pacca  a  La  Mennais,  Rome,  16  Aout 
1832.    ''Affairs  de  Rome,  Pieces  justificatives. 

27  "Nous  sommes  de  pauvres  oiseaux  enfermes  dans  le  recipient  de 
la  machine  pneumatique.  Que  faire?  Prendre  patience,  puisque  c'est 
Dieu  qui  nous  a  mis  la  et  chercher  dans  l'etude  et  pour  ainsi  dire,  dans 

69 


Affaires        Unfortunately,  the  story  of  their  disgrace  does  not  end  here ; 
p  j0-™6,    it  would  have  been  far  better  for  both  parties  had  this  been  the 
case.    But,  there  were  to  be  separations  and  the  severings  of 
friendships.28  And  even  then  their  enemies  were  not  satisfied 
with  a  silence  which,  so  La  Mennais  says,  was  too  much  like 
that  respectful  silence  of  the  Jansenists,  and  they  demanded 
further  submission.    Their  requests  became  unreasonable  and 
*Enc         *n  t*me  ^S  use^ess  persecution  became  intolerable  to  La  Men- 
Gregorius,    nais.    He  refused  to  make  a  second  act  of  contrition  and 


VU^Kal  another  Encyclical  followed,  this  time  of  definite  condemna- 
Julias  An    tion.    Rome  could  not  forgive  La  Mennais  the  "Paroles  d'un 

cccxxxiv  cr°yant' 

At  this  date,  July  7,  1834,  we  part  with  La  Mennais.  He 
lived  longer,  and  did  much  good,  even  serving  his  country  in  the 
capacity  of  a  deputy,  but  this  does  not  concern  us,  for  from 
now  on  he  is  removed  from  the  course  of  events  and  the  rela- 
Ami  de  la   tions  between  Church  and  State.   It  remains  to  follow  through 
ef^lfroi     ^ts  ^rst  sta£e  tne  £reat  movement  to  which  he  gave  the  first 
6  Sept.,     impulse,  an  impulse  which  by  no  means  spent  its  strength. 

How  had  France,  his  country,  received  the  condemnation  of 
the  three  Liberals  at  Rome?  One  party,  of  course,  had  rejoiced 
and  had  closed  the  discussion  of  the  affair  in  columns  of  its 
journal  with  the  triumphant  words  "Roma  locuta  est."  Others, 
happily,  had  foreseen  the  evil  of  such  an  action  and  the  great 
v.  Journal    spiritual  havoc  it  might  create.    Another,  still  more  violent, 
des  Debats   demanded  armed  intervention.   This,  of  course  was  ridiculous, 
1832  '     Dut  it  served  to  show  that  La  Mennais'  work  had  not  been  in 
Constitu-    vain,  and  that  those,  even  some  of  those  who  did  not  approve 
13  Sept.,     %  realized  its  importance  and  foresaw  what  we  shall  see  and 
1832       what  one  literateur  of  his  country  remarked  at  La  Mennais' 
death : 

P  Albert,       "On  croit  La  Mennais  fini ;  jamais  il  n'a  ete  plus  vivant." 
IT,  141  1 

l'atmosphere  de  la  science,  l'air  qui  nous  manque."  La  Mennais  a 
Montalembert  Logue,  1  Oct.  1832. 

2S  For  the  account  of  Lacordaire's  separation,  v.  La  Mennais  a  Monta- 
lembert, ed.  Fogues,  12  Dec.  1832. 


70 


CHAPTER  IV 


France  1832 — 1839 
The  Neo-Catholic  Revival 

The  Premier  who  had  inaugurated  the  Ancona  policy  did  not 
see  its  completion.  On  April  16,  1832,  the  very  day  of  the 
arrangement  made  between  Pope,  Emperor  and  King,  Casimir 
Perier  died.  For  nearly  half  a  year  previous  to  this  time,  Paris 
had  been  menaced  with  the  cholera  brought  into  Central  Europe 
via  Poland  whither  it  had  been  carried  by  the  Russian  troops 
returning  from  Armenia.  This  disease  claimed  Casimir  Perier. 
France  was  thrown  into  utter  consternation  at  the  news  of  his 
death ;  men  asked  themselves  whether  it  portended  good  or 
evil,  and  even  the  King  is  said  to  have  remarked :  "Casimir 
Perier  is  dead,  is  this  an  advantage  or  a  misfortune?  Time 
will  show."  And  time  has  shown  that  it  was  an  advantage  for 
Louis  Philippe.  Such  a  violent  policy  as  Perier  had  inaugu- 
rated had  accomplished  much,  but  it  could  not  have  been  tolera- 
ted longer ;  his  death  paved  the  way  for  men  of  a  more  peaceful 
nature  but  equally  talented,  and  also  more  subtle,  perhaps.  By 
November,  1832,  the  political  horizon  seemed  clearer;  the 
Monarchy  had  silenced  the  Republicans  and  Legitimists  tem- 
porarily at  least,  and  the  Bonapartists  as  well.  The  Republican 
revolt  of  June  5,  occasioned  by  the  funeral  of  General  La- 
marque,  had  threatened  seriously  the  safety  of  the  Monarchy, 
but  the  following  day  the  government  had  gained  a  signal  vic- 
tory over  them;  the  duchesse  de  Berri  episode  was  decisively 
closed  in  November,  and  several  months  before,  July  22,  the  due 
de  Reichstadt  had  died.  For  two  years  Louis  Philippe  was  to 
remain  unmenaced  and  secure  on  his  throne. 

After  Perier's  death  there  had  ensued  an  interim  when  the 
ministry  was  without  a  formal  head,  but  about  the  first  of  June 
Marshal  Soult  took  charge,  and  resumed,  after  two  years  re- 


71 


spite,  a  thorough  policy  of  "juste  milieu."  It  must  not  be  sup- 
posed, however,  that  the  opposition,  the  Progressives,  had  re- 
mained silent  all  these  months.  Finding  themselves  unable  to 
protest  with  any  success  in  the  chambers,  they  resorted  to  the 
press  and  the  attacks  against  the  government  became  more 
frequent  and  less  moderate.  There  were  many  prosecutions 
in  which  the  State  did  not  fare  well.1  Furthermore,  if  these 
prosecutions  displayed  to  the  world  the  instability  of  Louis 
Philippe's  throne,  they  also  betrayed  its  utter  hypocrisy.  The 
liberal  world  began  to  ask  itself  if,  after  all,  Louis  Philippe 
and  the  men  of  1830  were  really  sincere  in  their  protestations 
of  Liberalism. 

''Let  the  men  under  whose  direction  the  government  has  been 
worked  since  1830  ask  themselves  whether  the  French  people 
have  been  allowed  to  reap  all  the  benefits  to  which  the  victory 
obtained  at  the  price  of  their  own  blood  had  entitled  them ; 
whether  they  had  not  availed  themselves  of  the  power  which 
the  people  unsuspiciously  confided  into  their  hands  to  turn  the 
fruits  of  the  popular  triumph  to  the  profit  of  their  own  selfish 
interests  and  narrow-minded  views ;  and  if  they  could  convince 
us  that  they  conscientiously  believe  this  not  to  have  been  the 
case,  we  may  deplore  their  blindness,  but  not  think  the  less  of 
their  unfitness  to  be  at  the  head  of  public  affairs." 

This  opinion  may  be  said  to  have  been  held  in  France  as 
well,  and  so  in  a  desperate  attempt  to  please,  Louis  Philippe 
formed  a  new  Ministry.  The  presidency  was  first  offered  to 
Dupin,  but  he  refused,  Guizot  was  too  unpopular  with  the 

1  "The  acquittal  of  the  National,  a  Paris  paper,  for  a  libel  on  Louis 
Philippe,  or  rather  for  a  seditious  excitement  to  overturn  his  throne 
shows  the  utter  madness  of  the  State  prosecutions,  in  which  the  French 
government  has  lately  indulged.  There  can  be  no  question  that 
several  Paris  journals  contain  every  morning  provocations  to  rebel- 
lion. They  do  not  disguise  their  hatred  of  the  monarch  or  the  mon- 
archy nor  their  desire  to  see  the  establishment  of  a  republican  form  of 
government.  In  their  abuse  of  "the  Bourbons"  they  adroitly  veil  their 
attacks  and  in  praising  the  United  States  they  recommend  it  to 
France.  The  Tribune  has  now  arrived  at  its  sixty-second  process  and 
glories  in  each  summons.  .  .  .  When  juries  refuse  to  convict  the 
government  should  take  the  hint  and  cease  to  trouble  the  tribunals 
with  their  complaints.''  Dispatch  from  Paris,  London  Times,  Sept. 
4,  1832. 


72 


Republicans,  and  it  fell  to  the  due  de  Broglie  to  become  the  head 
of  a  new  Cabinet,  de  Broglie  was  a  high-minded  admirable 
statesman  but  a  "Doctrinaire'' ;  still,  Louis  Philippe  may  have 
felt  that  perhaps  under  him  the  men  who  wielded  the  real  power 
of  the  majority  might  be  allowed  to  effect  a  middle  course 
policy,  with  the  careful  hand  of  the  duke  ever  ready  to  re- 
strain them.  Hence  it  was  that  Guizot  and  Thiers  found  places 
in  the  Ministry  while  Dupin  was  left  in  the  Chamber  of 
Deputies.2 

It  was  a  strong  cabinet — "the  Ministry  of  All  Talents" — 
but  at  the  outset  it  was  confronted  with  a  difficult  task;  with- 
in France  to  consolidate  the  throne  by  the  arrest  of  the  duch- 
esse  de  Berri,  and  for  foreign  policy  to  secure  the  final  consent  v.  Hille- 
of  William  of  the  Netherlands  still  hesitating,  to  the  Treaty  jra^ 
of  the  Twenty-four  Articles.  It  will  be  remembered  that  one  of 
these  ends  was  soon  accomplished  while  the  other  they  at- 
tempted to  bring  about  by  following  up  the  policy  of  the 
Antwerp  Expedition.  But  the  king  remained  discontented ; 
he  did  not  like  his  Premier,  who  was  of  intractible  honesty 
and  who  seemed  to  him  too  much  of  an  idealist.  Moreover, 
this  feeling  was  not  confined  to  the  Court  alone;  there  were 
many  other  eyes  who  saw  the  danger  as  well.  The  "Doctrin- 
aires" had  returned,  those  very  men  who  almost  until  the  fall  of 
the  old  dynasty  had  failed  to  see  its  weakness,  and  who  at  the 
beginning  of  the  new  regime  had  been  unable  to  establish  it  as 
firmly  as  they  had  promised.3  In  past  times  they  had  seemed 
blind  to  actual  conditions  and  again  in  1833  their  statements  did 

2  Broglie,  Foreign  Affairs;  Thiers,  Interior;  Guizot,  Public  Instruc- 
tion; Mennais,  Finance;  Soult,  War;  Barthe,  Justice. 

3  'The  government  of  France  is  at  present  in  the  hands  of  the  doc- 
trinaires— men,  who  without  desiring  it,  have  contributed  a  good  deal 
to  the  downfall  of  the  Bourbons.  Their  political  science  as  formerly- 
developed  in  the  Globe  and  Journal  des  Debats  gives  us  an  idea  of 
the  tendency  of  their  views.  ...  In  the  Journal  des  Debats  for  the 
nth  of  August  of  the  same  year  (1829)  we  find  the  following  pas- 
sage :  'Irritation  is  daily  appeased,  the  recollections  of  faction  are  on 
the  wane,  and  extinguish  themselves  in  a  general  attachment  to  the 
Charter.'  Thus  spoke  the  coryphaei  of  the  'doctrine'  and  within  a  year 
the  dynasty  was  expelled,  the  Charter,  that  'object  of  general  attachment,' 
was  torn  to  pieces  by  an  imbecile  monarch  and  the  sublime  populace 
of  July  forced  its  way  in  arms  into  the  palace  of  the  king."  Dispatch 
from  Paris,  London  Times,  Jan.  5,  1833. 


73 


not  seem  conformable  to  the  general  opinion  of  the  country. 
"The  country  wants  no  further  troubles  or  disturbances,  it 
thirsts  for  legal  order ;  political  passions  become  extinct  daily." 
In  only  one  sense  of  the  word  is  this  statement  true ;  the  coun- 
try indeed  did  not  seem  to  want  any  further  disturbances  or 
troubles,  and  for  a  year  there  ensued  an  apathy — curious  and 
LjjB1j^8C'  >7et  none  the  less  natural  in  such  uncertain  times.4  Three  laws 
were  passed  by  the  Ministry  and  the  nature  of  these  laws  cannot 
but  tend  to  confirm  the  observations  made  by  the  foreign  press 
on  the  system  of  the  doctrinaires.  The  first  law  concerned 
the  reorganization  and  reestablishment  of  the  "Conseils 
London  d'arrondissement."  A  proposition  had  been  made  by  Odilon 
\pj**3  Barrot  and  his  confreres  that  the  government  form  a  new 
1833  law  allowing  more  opportunity  to  the  electors  living  in  the 
country  districts,  to  assert  their  wishes.  This  proposal  failed, 
and  the  older  order,  amounting  to  nothing  more  than  an  elec- 
toral monopoly  on  the  part  of  the  government,  was  reestab- 
lished. Guizot  then  proposed  a  more  liberal  law  on  primary 
instruction ;  this  was  passed  but  its  effect  was  rendered  null 
by  the  passing  of  other  contrary  legislation.  The  Ministry 
in  its  turn  introduced  and  passed,  on  the  ground  of  public 
utility,  a  law  on  the  expropriation  of  public  property.  In 
external  affairs  the  first  year  of  the  new  ministry  was  not 
much  more  successful ;  France  had  cried  aloud  together 
with  most  of  the  Western  Europe  that  the  integrity  of  the 

4  Victor  Hugo  in  the  Preface  to  "Le  Rois  s'amuse,"  1833,  notes  this 
condition ;  his  explanation  is  pertinent :  "The  moment  of  political 
transition  in  which  we  are  placed  is  extraordinary.  It  is  one  of 
those  instances  of  general  weariness  in  which  any  act  of  despotism  is 
possible  in  a  society,  even  the  most  deeply  imbued  with  notions  of 
emancipation  and  liberty.  France  proceeded  rapidly  in  1830.  She 
did  three  good  day's  work.  She  erected  three  depots  in  the  field  of 
civilization  and  advancement.  Now,  many  are  wearied,  many  out  of 
breath,  many  call  a  halt.  It  is  wished  to  hold  back  those  generous 
spirits  who  are  never  tired  and  desire  to  keep  always  in  advance,  and 
wait  for  the  laggards  who  are  in  the  rear  and  give  them  time  to  come 
up.  Hence  an  extraordinary  fear  of  everything  that  thinks.  This  is  an 
odd  situation  of  things,  easily  understood,  but  difficult  to  describe.  It 
consists  of  all  existing  that  tremble  at  all  ideal  things;  the  league  of 
interests  pressed  upon  and  bruised  by  theories;  commerce  which  takes 
fright  at  all  systems;  merchants  who  want  customers;  streets  that 
put  counting  houses  in  fear;  trie  armed  shop  that  defends  itself." 


74 


Ottoman  Empire  must  be  maintained  and  yet  she  had  taken 
part  in  annihilation  of  the  Turkish  fleet  at  Novarino, 
and  was  concerned  in  the  Treaty  of  Adrianople.  "Monstrous 
Contradiction,"'  cried  the  Republicans.  It  is  true,  the  ministry 
was  one  step  nearer  the  English  Alliance,  but  as  yet  it  was 
only  in  prospect,  and  men  were  beginning  to  have  so  little 
faith  in  the  "Doctrine"  that  they  doubted  if  such  a  happy 
situation  would  ever  become  a  reality.  In  1833,  then,  some 
were  again,  because  of  present  discontents,  dreaming  of  a 
Republic,  but  they  bided  their  time,  for  they  were  still  too 
few  in  number  to  succeed. 

The  year  1834,  however,  opened  more  auspiciously  for 
Louis  Philippe.  The  English  entente  was  in  immediate  pros- 
pect— it  was  the  year  of  the  Triple  and  Quadruple  Alliances. 
These  two  alliances  were  of  great  service  to  the  "Ministry 
of  all  Talents";  they  brought  to  reality  the  English  Entente, 
an  object  in  prospect  for  over  four  years,  the  first  step 
to  which  had  been  the  Anglo-French  accord  in  regard  to 
Belgium,  and  the  marriage  of  Louis  Philippe's  daughter  to 
Leopold  I,  England's  candidate.  The  occasion  of  the  alliances 
was  the  civil  wars  in  Spain  and  Portugal.  Isabelle  II  of  Spain, 
on  the  death  of  her  father  in  1833,  found  herself  confronted 
with  a  rival  to  the  throne  in  the  person  of  Don  Carlos,  while 
in  1834,  Donna  Maria's  right  to  the  throne  of  Portugal  was 
challenged  by  Don  Miguel,  her  uncle.  England  took  the  part 
of  these  two  unfortunate  queens,  one  of  whom  was  only 
a  child,  and  with  them  she  formed  a  pact  of  protection  known  iv™' 
as  the  Triple  Alliance.  On  April  22,  1834  France  joined  the 
three  and  this  treaty  marks  the  foundation  of  the  Quadruple 
Alliance.  Thus  was  cemented  the  friendly  entente  with  Eng-  d'Haus- 
land,  and  yet,  like  so  many  of  the  political  sections  of  the  Hjst  jj 
July  Monarchy,  it  was  founded  on  a  patent  inconsistency.  It 
was  true  that  England,  no  longer  a  member  of  the  "Holy 
Alliance"  needed  an  ally  and  France  was  in  equal  need,  but  Bj°jUTrgj^ 
that  was  their  sole  mutual  ground  for  sympathy,  as  future  ' 
events  will  show.  They  had  failed  to  take  into  account  their 
radically  different  policies  in  the  East,  and  also  England, 
if  she  took  the  entente  seriously,  though  of  this  there  is  some 
ground  for  doubt,  must  have  forgotten  that  Louis  Philippe 


75 


was  part  Bourbon,  and  once  he  held  the  reins  of  the  gov- 
ernment himself,  might  revert  to  old  Bourbon  policies — 
witness  Spain  and  the  question  of  the  Spanish  marriages. 
Except  for  a  slight  break  in  1840,  under  Thiers'  ministry,  the 
English  alliance,  nevertheless,  was  to  hold  good  and  be  further 
strengthened  by  visits  exchanged  between  the  sovereigns 
(1843- 1845)  until  the  fatal  year  1846. 

This,  then,  was  the  first  advantage  of  the  Quadruple  Alli- 
ance— France  had  an  ally,  even  if  she  was  excluded  by 
Metternich  from  the  general  European  Concert.  The  second 
advantage  which  the  Ministry  had  foreseen,  however,  was  to 
make  less  of  an  impression  on  the  minds  of  the  French.  Upon 
the  outbreak  of  civil  war  in  their  respective  realms,  the  two 
queens  had  found  themselves  almost  without  support  at  home. 
Both  turned,  therefore,  to  the  liberal  party,  and  aided  by  the 
liberal  parties  in  their  respective  realms,  Donna  Maria  and 
Isabella  were  victorious,  with  this  important  result:  the  for- 
mation of  quasi-constitutional  governments.  So  another 
French  Ministry  was  enabled  to  boast  of  a  liberal  policy. 
But  this  advantage  was  comparatively  nil  in  France.  It  had, 
however,  one  serious  result ;  it  opened  the  eyes  of  Metternich 
to  a  new  situation,  a  formidable  coalition  for  constitutional 
rights  seemed  imminent,5  and  he  determined  to  break  this 
union  as  soon  as  possible.  In  still  another  quarter  there  was 
discontent,  and  of  a  far  more  serious  nature ;  this  policy  had 
not  impressed  the  Republicans.  In  April  1834  another  revolt 
broke  out  among  the  factory  workers  in  Lyons,  principally 
hatmakers  and  silk  weavers.  The  Industrial  Revolution  as 
before,  was  the  cause ;  but  while  the  riot  originated  in  the 
form  of  a  strike,  it  soon  became  more  menacing.  The  Re- 
Weill,  p.  publicans  seized  upon  it,  and  attempted  to  use  it  as  a  means 
to  gain  their  own  ends.  The  revolt  spread  to  St.  Etienne, 
Clermont,  Grenoble  and  finally  to  Poitiers  and  Luneville. 
Soon  Paris,  too,  was  the  scene  of  a  riot  where  the  Republicans 

B  "I  reckon  this  to  be  a  great  stroke.  In  the  first  place  it  will  settle 
Portugal,  and  go  some  way  to  settle  Spain  also.  But  what  is  of  more 
permanent  and  extensive  importance,  it  establishes  a  quadruple  alliance 
among  the  Constitutional  States  of  the  West,  which  will  serve  as  a 
power  counterpoise  to  the  Holy  Alliance  of  the  East."  Letter  of 
Palmerston,  quoted  in  Cruice  VI,  65. 


76 


of  the  capital  with  "sections"  named  after  the  great  heroes  of 
the  Revolution,  Robespierre,  Marat,  etc.,  took  to  street  fighting 
under  the  direction  of  Cavaignac,  Lagrange,  Grinaud  and 
Louis  Blanc.  Louis  Philippe's  two  years  of  internal  peace 
had  ended. 

The  year  1835  saw  several  changes  in  the  cast  of  characters 
to  play  a  part  in  the  history  of  political  progress  under  Louis 
Philippe.  La  Fayette  had  died  in  May  of  the  preceding  year 
and  de  Broglie  during  that  year  resigned  from  the  Ministry. 
But  the  principal  interest  of  the  new  year  was  the  trial  of 
the  Republican  leaders  who  had  figured  in  the  April  Days  of 
1834.  Here  again,  the  government  displayed  almost  incredible 
weakness;  there  were  no  death  sentences;  deportation  was  to 
be  the  penalty,  and  Cavaignac  was  allowed  to  escape  from 
Paris.  The  greatest  event  of  the  year,  however,  was  not 
the  trial  ,  of  the  republican  conspirators  but  the  attempt  made 
on  the  life  of  Louis  Philippe  July  28th.  Its  results  were 
far  reaching.  On  that  date  Louis  Philippe  reviewed  the 
troops  on  the  Boulevard  du  Temple.  During  the  review  an 
infernal  machine  exploded  near  the  king;  forty  people  were 
killed,  but  Louis  Philippe  escaped  uninjured.  This  time  the 
government  was  not  so  lenient  in  its  actions.  The  perpetrators 
of  the  crime,  Morey,  Fieschi  and  one  Pepin,  were  condemned 
to  death  and  guillotined.  But  the  trial  had  been  the  scene 
of  constant  riots  and  the  government,  alarmed,  decided  at 
last  on  repressive  measures.  Accordingly  the  September  laws  Hillebrand, 
were  promulgated  altering  the  assize  court  system  by  allow-  x'  480  et  seq 
ing  the  Minister  of  Justice  to  create  as  many  of  these  special 
courts  as  might  be  necessary  in  the  event  of  attacks  threaten- 
ing the  security  of  the  State.  In  addition,  jury  decisions  were 
made  possible  by  a  mere  majority  vote  (instead  of  two-thirds 
vote  as  heretofore)  and  the  censorship  of  the  press  was  to  be 
vigorously  enforced.  Such  were  the  direct  results  of  the 
Morey-Fieschi  attempt.  The  indirect  results  were  still  greater ; 
more  stringent  laws  were  passed  forbidding  associations,  and 
the  paper  hawkers  were  allowed  to  sell  only  specified  journals. 
There  was,  moreover,  another  result  of  this  latest  attempt  on 
the  life  of  the  King,  and  this  is  found  in  the  changed  attitude 
of  the  monarch  himself.    Six  attempts  in  all  were  made  on 


77 


Thureau 
Dangin, 
II,  439 


v.  Mazade, 
"Thiers" 


v.  de  Croza- 
les, 
"Guizot" 


v.  Bardoux, 
"Guizot" 


Hillebrand, 
I,  621 ;  also 
498 


the  life  of  Louis  Philippe  during  his  reign  and  these  experi- 
ences taught  him  far  more  successfully  than  the  cunning  of 
Metternich,  the  advantages  of  principles  of  Legitimacy  and 
a  "Bourbon  policy."  The  September  Laws  mark  the  first 
step  in  this  direction. 

The  effect  of  this  Ordinance  on  the  "Ministry  of  All  Talents" 
was  fatal ;  for,  while  the  laws  appeared  to  accomplish  the 
desired  end,  their  authors  found  themselves  unable  to  do 
more.  Accordingly  in  February,  1836  the  Ministry  was  dis- 
solved and  from  this  date  there  ensued  a  period  of  four 
years'  struggle  which  may  well  be  called  the  Parliamentary 
crisis  of  the  July  Monarchy.  It  was  during  this  interval  that 
the  monarchical  principle  as  understood  by  the  founders  of 
the  July  Monarchy  began  to  lose  its  hold.  The  reason  is 
obvious.  By  the  fall  of  the  Broglie  cabinet  all  those  elements, 
that  had  been  united  under  the  Ministry  of  Casimir  Perier 
and  that  had  given  it  and  the  succeeding  Cabinet  much  power 
were  dispersed,  de  Broglie,  Thiers,  Guizot,  Mole,  Soult,  the 
great  parliamentarians  of  the  day,  no  longer  acted  in  unison 
and  in  harmony.  They  were  now  to  act  independently ; 
politics  became  a  matter  of  personal  interest  and  personal 
theories.  The  dissolution  of  the  Ministry  of  the  Doctrine 
brought  more  anarchy  into  the  field  of  political  ideals.  It 
seemed,  too,  as  if  the  most  prominent  of  these  leaders  had 
experienced  a  sudden  political  transformation.  Thiers,  no 
longer  of  the  "doctrinaires,"  became  more  affiliated  with  the 
Left  Center,  while  Guizot,  abjuring  his  former  policies,  be- 
came a  leader  in  the  opposition  of  the  Right.6    The  period 

"A  propos  of  this  change  on  the  part  of  Guizot  Heine  (Lutece) 
remarked  a  little  later :  "With  Guizot  it  is  different.  For  him  the 
victory  of  the  bourgeois  is  a  fait  accompli.  He  evinces  all  the  quali- 
ties of  a  true  doctrinaire,  who  never  fails  to  find  a  doctrine  by  which  he 
proves  all  he  does.  He  knows  too  much  and  is  by  far  too  intelligent  to 
be  a  sceptic  at  bottom,  but  his  scepticism  is  easily  conciliated  with 
the  devotion  to  his  system.  Just  now  he  is  a  faithful  servant  of  the 
Bourgeoisie  and  he  will  defend  his  idea  to  the  last  inexorably  and 
with  the  harshness  of  a  Duke  of  Alva.  He  does  not  hesitate,  he 
knows  what  he  wants  at  the  present  hour.  Why  even  were  he  to  fall 
his  very  fall  would  not  shake  him;  he  would  shrug  his  shoulders  for 
after  all  he  is  personally  indifferent  to  the  thing  he  is  fighting  for.  Nay 
even  if  by  strange  hazard  victory  should  tumble  into  the  hands  of 


78 


of  rivalry  was  an  actuality;  it  was  no  longer  a  thing  foretold 
or  foreseen.  The  obtaining  of  a  Parliamentary  majority — 
now  a  very  fickle  and  elusive  object,  became  a  mere  matter 
of  agility.  One  foreign  observer,  then  a  resident  of  Paris, 
gives  a  very  striking  yet  by  no  means  inexact  description 
of  the  rivalry  between  the  two  leaders : 

"He  (Guizot)  does  not  know  how  to  come  down 
from  the  top  mast  of  power.  Whilst  Thiers,  who 
is  as  agile  as  a  monkey  in  getting  to  the  top  of  this  greasy 
"mat  de  cocagne"  is  still  more  ready  to  slip  down  from  it 
again,  and  jump  among  the  admiring  crowd,  full  of  smiles, 
ease,  elasticity ;  Guizot  neither  climbs  up  nor  comes  down  the 
same  way.  He  hoists  himself  up  so  heavily  and  with  such 
outrageous  efforts  of  strength,  that  one  invariably  thinks  of  h.  Heine, 
a  bear  scaling  a  wall  to  get  a  honey  pot;  but  when  he  is  at  8 
the  top,  he  digs  his  strong  paws  vigorously  in,  and  then  it 
is  very  hard  to  get  him  down.  Perhaps  he  has  not  the  easy 
knack  of  descending  possessed  by  his  smart  rival,  and,  once 
'in,'  it  may  require  a  positive  commotion  to  get  him  'out'  of 
his  high  place." 

On  the  22nd  of  February,  1836,  Thiers  formed  a  new 
ministry.  It  was  not  to  last  long,  however,  and  the  sixth  of 
September,  Thiers  resigned  owing  to  a  reversal  of  policy  by 
Louis  Philippe  who,  at  the  last  minute,  denied  the  advisability 
of  Thiers'  policy  to  send  troops  to  Spain  for  the  purpose  of 
upholding  the  new  Constitution  granted  by  Isabella  II. 

The  first  ministry  of  Thiers  had  also  witnessed  the  early  v.  Moniteur, 
discovery  of  another  attempt  to  be  made  on  the  life  of  Louis  4  5I^5pt"' 
Philippe,  again  this  time  planned  by  the  Republicans  now 
known  under  two  names  "The  Society  of  the  Family"  and 
the  "Society  of  the  People's  Rights."  Thus  the  king  was 
a  second  time  brought  face  to  face  with  the  grave  dangers 
menacing  the  dynasty  and  a  new  policy,  long  in  contempla- 
tion but  never  before  tried,  was  inaugurated  under  the  Mole 
Ministry  ( 1836-1839) .     This  new  plan  was  known  as  the 

the  Republicans  or  Communists  I  would  strongly  advise  these  ex- 
cellent weak-witted  individuals  to  get  hold  of  Guizot  for  their  minis- 
ter, and  I  would  give  just  the  same  advice  to  'Henricinquists'  (Carlists) 
in  case  they  should  be  restored  one  day  to  power."  Lutece,  Franzosische 
Ziistande  II,  L. 


79 


"policy  of  personal  government/'7    The  new  cabinet  proved 
to  be  the  training  school  in  which  Guizot  prepared  himself 
for  his  long  term  of  office  after  the  fall  of  Thiers  in  1840.8 
Mole  desired  to  put  an  end  to  the  policy  of  repression  as 
instituted  by  the  September  Laws ;  he  had  visions  of  social 
reform,  and  of  bringing  about  a  reconciliation  between  parties, 
v.  La  Men*  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  he  was  supported  in  this  by  La 
"Troisiemes'  Mennais.    The  entrance  of  Guizot  into  the  Ministry,  how- 
Milanges    ever,  prevented  the  pursuit  of  this  plan,  perhaps  too  ideal  for 
such  troublesome  times,  and  the  former  "Doctrinaires''  headed 
by  the  new  minister,  soon  formed  a  separate  faction  in  the 
cabinet  against  their  chief.    The  first  event  of  importance 
was  the  Strassburg  plot  of  October  30th,  originated  by  the 
Bonapartists  and  headed  by  Louis  Napoleon.    The  "Culte 
Napoleon''  had  been  gaining  the  people  for  some  time.  For 
fear  of  appearing  cowardly  had  they  done  otherwise,  the  gov- 
ernment had  foolishly  allowed  plays  dealing  with  Napoleonic 
era  to  be  produced  at  the  various  theatres,  and  the  news- 
papers of  the  time  were  filled  with  verse  and  anecdotes  about 
the  great  Emperor.  But  the  "Prince"  was  finally  seized,  brought 
to  Paris,  and  then  shipped  to  America  where  he  remained 
silent  for  a  brief  interval.    New  elections  were  called  for 
the  fourth  of  November,  occasioned  by  the  discussion  on  the 
v.  also  Ida  laws  of  "appanage,"  and  these  served  the  purpose  of  arousing 
"Le  iSi^des  ^e  Press  from  its  lethargy.    Attacks  against  the  government 
Barricades"  became  violent  and  the  famous  caricature  of  Louis  Philippe 
"La  Poire  Couronnee"  appeared.    Taken  all  in  all,  however, 
this  agitation  had  little,  if  any  effect,  and  a  period  of  com- 
parative prosperity  followed.    France  was  given  a  breathing 
space  and  was  allowed  to  pursue  and  to  develop  for  a  time 
her  colonial  policy.    The  conquest  of  Algiers  was  completed ; 
there  was  peace  at  home  and  abroad.    This  state  of  affairs, 
was  of  short  duration. 

7  Louis  Philippe  is  said  to  have  remarked  to  the  Prussian  ambassa- 
dor:  "Priez  le  Roi  de  prendre  en  consideration  en  me  jugeant  les 
difficultes  de  ma  position.  Aussi  j'ai  du  prendre  pour  six  mois 
M.  Thiers  pour  montrer  a  la  France  ce  qu'il  vaut.  II  me  faut  infine- 
ment  de  patience  et  de  persistence  pour  conduire  ma  barque. "  Louis 
Philippe's  own  words  to  Werther,  quoted  Hillebrand  I,  636. 

*  Mole,  Guizot,  de  Remuscat,  Duchatel,  Montalivet. 

80 


In  1839  there  occurred  a  memorable  event  in  the  history  of 
parliamentary  government  in  France.    For  some  time  there 
had  been  gradually  forming  a  coalition  that  seemed  to  por- 
tend a  reunion  of  some  of  those  very  elements  dispersed  at 
the  fall  of  the  "Ministry  of  All  Talents."  In  the  Chamber  there 
had  come  about  a  feeling  of  sympathy  among  the  leaders  of 
the  different  parties.   Guizot  and  Dufaure  of  the  Right  Center, 
Berryer  of  the  Extreme  Right,  Thiers  of  the  Left  Center, 
Odilon  Barrot  of  the  Dynastic  Left,  and  even  to  a  certain 
extent  Lamartine  of  the  Extreme  Left  were  slowly  finding 
that  they  all  had  certain  causes  for  mutual  action.    But,  this 
was  not  the  reunion  for  which  Mole  had  striven;  in  fact,  it 
was  against  the  Prime  Minister  himself  that  they  were  form- 
ing.    There    is    only    one    reason    for    this  phenomenal 
rapprochement;  the  majority  of  the  Mole  Cabinet  were  be- 
come the  blind  instruments  of  the  king's  policy.    This  policy, 
as  it  appeared  to  everyone,  would  be  fatal;  it  demanded  con- 
cessions with  bad  grace  at  home  and  too  ready  concessions 
abroad.    The  Eastern  Question  was  already  of  prime  im- 
portance and  many  felt  that  therein  lay  France's  glory.  Then 
too,  the  Spanish  question  was  still  unsettled.    Furthermore,  v.  Moniteur, 
a  change  of  attitude  on  the  part  of  the  king  rendered  their  4~5Ig^pt'' 
solution  more  remote  as  far  as  France  was  concerned.  For 
Louis  Philippe  had  long  since  begun  to  regret  that  he  was 
of  revolutionary  origin,  and  he  now  sought  to  have  this  fact  Journal  des 
forgotten.    His  recent  experiences  had  shown  him  that  he 
need  no  longer  expect  much  from  the  Liberals,  and  he  had  1836 
in  contemplation  a  thorough  policy  of  reaction.    By  1839, 
then,  Louis  Philippe  was  resolved  to  discard  nearly  all  appear- 
ances of  liberalism  and  he  was  now  more  likely  to  listen  to  ^filnes^ 
the  cunning  of  Metternich.    As  we  have  seen,  the  Austrian     Sept.  5, 
until  1836  had  employed  a  policy  of  intimidation  in  regard  l^ 
to  the  July  Monarchy,  and  during  this  period  the  king  had 
kept  aloof  from  him  in  a  wary  fashion.9    But  upon  the  inau-    v  ^etter- 
guration    by  Louis  Philippe  of  a  policy  of  personal  govern.-  rrich  Xach 
ment,  the  direct  influenceof  old  reactionary  doctrines  became  PapferTn, 

V,  VI  and 

"Metternich  commenca  par  traiter  Louis  Philippe  en  ennemi  sans  yij  •  especi- 
lui  faire  du  mal,  et  finit  par  le  traiter  en  ami  sans  lui  faire  du  bien."  ally  VI  and 
Debidour,  "Etudes  Critiques,"  Metternich  et  la  Monarchic  de  Juillet,  VII 
P-  331. 

81 


apparent.  The  first  evidence  of  this  new  influence  is  found 
Hillebrand,  in  the  year  1836  during  Thiers'  first  term  as  Premier.  It 
^et '  se?  vv^  ^e  remembered  that  in  that  year  Louis  Philippe  suddenly 
reversed  the  policy  he  had  formerly  pursued  in  regard  to 
Spain,  and  a  quarrel  with  Thiers,  leading  to  the  latter's  resig- 
nation, followed.  At  that  very  moment  the  king  was  hunting 
a  wife  for  his  son  and  heir,  the  due  d'Orleans,  and  was  con- 
sidering the  possibility  of  obtaining  the  consent  of  the  Emperor 
to  a  marriage  with  the  Archduchess  Theresa.  This  quarrel 
with  Thiers  also  led  to  a  brief  estrangement  with  England, 
for  the  latter  country  had  interpreted  his  action  as  a  re- 
nunciation of  the  Quadruple  Alliance.  The  significant  fact 
is  that  for  the  moment  the  king  did  not  seem  to  care.  The 
second  indication  of  a  tendency  on  the  part  of  the  king  to 
reverse  his  former  policies  is  still  more  convincing;  Louis 
Philippe  seemed  to  have  lost  interest  in  the  final  settlement 
of  Belgian  affairs.  Here  were  two  great  events  in  which  the 
king  had  shown  such  interest  in  the  years  1833  and  1834; 
how  account  for  this  change  of  attitude  T  The  question  is 
answered  by  the  following  fact ;  for  some  time  it  had  been 
known  that  Louis  Philippe,  through  Saint-Aulaire,  was  carry- 
ing on  a  considerable  correspondence  with  Metternich.  It 
was  to  combat  this  new  influence,  then,  that  the  "Coalition" 
was  formed,  and  to  save  France  from  a  new  peril  they  re- 
solved to  strike  at  once.  It  was  when  Louis  Philippe  (through 
Mole)  seemed  likely  to  definitely  reverse  his  entire  attitude 
towards  Spain  that  the  Coalitionists  decided  to  act.  Other 
questions,  less  important  were  pending,  and  using  these 
the  coalition  protested.  New  elections  were  called.  On 
March  8,  1839  the  new  chamber  was  returned,  and  it  was 
found  that  there  were  252  Coalitionists  against  207  Minis- 
terial. Mole  resigned  on  that  day.  The  first  effort  of  Met- 
ternich had  failed ;  the  English  Alliance,  one  of  the  bases 
of  the  July  Monarchy,  had  been  saved  by  the  actions  of  the 
Parliamentary  Coalition. 

If,  however,  Metternich's  plot  did  not  succeed  the  first  time, 
it  was  not  long  before  another  event  would  give  him  the 
opportunity  he  sought.  After  a  brief  interval  during  which 
time  there  occurred  the  riot  of  the  "Society  of  the  Seasons," 


82 


the  Soult  ministry  was  formed.  It  lasted  but  six 
months.  Soult  was  not  vigorous,  and  seemed  totally  unfit  to 
cope  with  a  very  serious  question  of  foreign  policy  now  ap- 
pearing on  the  political  horizon.  The  Chambers  demanded 
Thiers,  and  the  disagreement  upon  the  question  of  the  dot 
of  the  due  de  Memours  became  the  occasion  of  the  Marshal's 
downfall.  Nothing  more  remained  for  Louis  Philippe  to  do 
but  to  call  a  man  from  the  Left  Center.  Accordingly,  on  the 
fourth  of  March,  1840,  Thiers  formed  his  second  ministry. 
One  main  question  occupied  the  entire  attention  of  the  country 
during  this  year  and  that  was  the  affair  of  Mehemet-Ali  and 
the  Orient. 

The  Turkish  Empire  was  at  this  time  embroiled  with  one  of 
its  former  vassals,  Mehemet-Ali,  who  more  than  once  had 
saved  the  Sultan  from  serious  defeat.    As  a  reward  for  his 
services  he  had  asked  of  Mahomet  the  hereditary  vice-regal 
rights  over  Egypt  and  Syria  with  the  express  stipulation 
that  he  would  always  acknowledge  the  sovereignty  of  the 
Porte.     But  the  Sultan  feeling  more  independent  because 
of  a  recent  treaty  with  Russia  whereby  the  Tsar  in  return 
for  promised  protection  obtained  the  right  of  entrance  into 
Dardanelles,  refused  his  vassal's  request.    Mehemet-Ali  then 
complained  to  France,  England  and  Austria,  warning  them 
that  Russia  controlled  nearly  half  the  Ottoman  Empire,  and 
was  oppressing  it  under  the  pretext  of  protecting  it  and  that 
she  would  "become  in  the  end  a  colossus  which,  standing    l.  Blanc, 
between  the  Black  Sea  and  the  Mediterranean,  would  make  jj^fo' 
the  world  turn  left  or  right  according  to  her  own  caprice." 
The  powers  to  whom  this  appeal  was  made  acknowledged  the 
truth  of  this  observation,  but  busied  as  they  were  with  their  v.  de  Malor- 
own  particular  designs,  they  did  not  heed  the  warning  it  ^gj^^" 
contained.    England  alone  seems  to  have  paid  any  attention  AH 
to  it.    But  when  Ibrahim,  the  son  of  Mehemet-Ali  entered 
into  Syria  with  an  armed  force  they  all  took  fright,  and  cried 
with  one  voice,  "The  Integrity  of  the  Ottoman  Empire  must   V*  Queen* 
be  preserved."    England,  in  accordance  with  her  entente,  had  Victoria, 
asked  Louis  Philippe  to  protest  against  the  Dardanelles  ar-  ^^^0, 
rangement  in  1839,  but  he  had  declined.    So,  Palmerston  in 
1840  turned  elsewhere  to  see  what  could  be  arranged,  for  he 


83 


L.  Blanc, 
II,  643-4 


Edinburgh 

Review, 
Feb.,  1840 


Metter- 
nich's  own 
words,  De- 
bidour, 
"Etudes 
Critiques," 
341-2 


felt  that  there  would  not  be  the  slightest  hope  of  assistance 
from  France.  Furthermore  France  had  already  shown  her- 
self favourable  to  Mehemet-Ali.  This,  from  England's  point 
of  view,  rendered  the  French  position  all  the  more  suspicious, 
for  Mehemet-Ali  had  refused  to  grant  a  trade  route  for 
British  commerce ;  might  this  not  be  the  price  he  had  paid 
for  French  favour?  To  Palmerston,  therefore,  the  Algiers 
occupation  and  this  shown  of  friendship  to  Mehemet-Ali  could 
mean  but  one  thing — the  extension  of  the  French  sphere 
of  influence  in  the  East.  Public  opinion  in  England  was 
rapidly  changing  to  Palmerston's  view,  and  in  a  few  months 
they  had  come  to  believe  what  one  periodical  had  observed 
earlier  in  the  year ;  that  France  desired  to  become  at  Alexandria 
what  Russia  had  become  at  Constantinople.  Here,  then,  was 
Metternich's  opportunity ;  Russia  and  England  had  a  common 
grievance,  Russia  because  of  the  occupation  of  Algiers  which 
seemed  to  threaten  her  own  influence,  and  England  because 
of  the  essential  differences  between  her  Eastern  policy  and 
that  of  France.  The  steps  leading  up  to  the  Quadrilateral 
Treaty  were  many  and  complicated.  In  brief,  it  soon  became 
evident  that  England,  Austria  and  Russia  were  to  be  lined 
up  against  Mehemet-Ali  and  France.  The  treaty  was  signed 
at  London  on  July  15th  between  England,  Russia,  Prussia 
and  Austria,  for  the  purpose  of  subduing  Mehemet-Ali  and 
insuring  "the  integrity  of  the  Ottoman  Empire."  War  seemed 
imminent,  but  suddenly  Louis  Philippe  checked  Thiers.  Could 
it  have  been  the  words  of  Metternich  that  arrested  Louis 
Philippe  in  the  fulfilment  of  the  policy  of  his  progressive 
Premier:  "The  King  belongs  to  one  party  and  the  Ministry 
to  another.  In  such  a  situation,  how  can  France  be  trusted?" 
The  "King  of  the  Glorious  Days"  bowed  before  a  veritable 
reincarnation  of  the  Holy  Alliance,  and  Thiers  resigned  Oc- 
tober 29th.  France  had  been  again  excluded  from  the 
European  concert,  the  English  Alliance  seemed  broken.  It 
remained  for  Guizot  to  repair  for  a  time  and  then  reestablish 
the  old  state  of  affairs. 

These  were,  in  the  main,  the  political  events  of  importance 
during  the  Period  of  Parliamentary  Rivalry  and  Decline  fol- 
lowing the  Ancona  affair  and  the  condemnation  of  I'Avenir. 


84 


During  that  period  personal  government  was  established,  then 

overthrown,  only  to  be  reestablished  through  the  weakness 

of  a  king  duped  by  the  clever  negotiations  of  one  of  the 

greatest  diplomats  of  his  age.    Having  this  outline  of  events 

always  in  mind,  it  now  remains  to  follow  the  fortunes  of  the   R-  p-  ™  51 

party  condemned  by  an  act  of  Papal  authority  in  1832.  La 

Mennais,  it  will  be  remembered,  was  abandoned,  Lacordaire 

thrown  into  terror  at  his  own  rash  acts  and  sayings,  and 

Montalembert  torn  between  the  love  of  his  former  leader  Debidour, 

and  his  faith.    Disconsolate  the  latter  wandered  over  Europe  430-1 

seeking  the  distractions  his  former  guide  had  bade  him  seek, 

and  after  a  long  interval  he  found  an  interest  in  the  forgotten 

legend  of  St.  Elizabeth.    This  labour  prepared  his  mind  for 

a  still  greater  work.    In  the  meantime,  the  Liberal  Catholic 

0  ,  .  .  Thureau- 

cause  was  not  without  its  new  disciples  and  reorganizers.  Dangin, 
Such  a  great  movement  could  not  be  eradicated  by  the  mere  ^°n'  ^2*3^ 
stroke  of  a  pen  on  a  Papal  allocution.  Another  group  was 
forming,  separate  and  distinct  at  first,  but  soon  to  have  direct 
continuity  with  the  silenced  party  of  VAvenir  through  the 
adherence  of  Lacordaire,  de  Coux,  de  Carne,  the  brothers 
Bore  and  Montalembert.  And  while  these  men  did  not  carry 
the  mantle  of  La  Mennais  with  them  into  the  new  group, 
while  his  name  was  often  openly  disavowed,  still  they  did 
not  escape  from  his  general  teachings,  or  his  professed 
theories.  The  new  Liberal  Catholic  Movement,  to  be  known 
later  as  the  "Neo-Catholic"  Movement,  was  merely  the  "epoque 
organique"  of  an  earlier  formative  and  critical  period;  much 
was  abandoned  but  nothing  was  added.  In  the  end,  Montalem- 
bert and  Lacordaire  received  the  reward  of  their  earlier  and 
less  successful  ventures,  by  seeing  their  efforts  crowned  in 
the  granting  of  some  of  those  very  rights  which  VAvenir 
had  so  valiantly  demanded — liberty  of  association  and  liberty 
of  teaching.  After  all  are  there  not  included  in  these  two 
privileges  all  the  other  liberties  demanded  by  the  young  dis- 
ciples of  La  Mennais?  Why,  then,  was  the  new  group  to 
succeed  where  La  Mennais  had  failed?  There  are  many 
answers  to  that  question  and  all  of  them  are  important, 
but  the  principle  reasons  to  be  remembered  at  this  time  are 
three  in  number.    In  the  first  place,  they  had  the  patience 


85 


and  the  faith  that  La  Mennais  lacked.  Then,  too,  they  con- 
centrated their  efforts  in  three  single  directions,  charity  and 
the  demand  for  the  two  liberties  mentioned  above.  And 
lastly,  they  were  careful  always  to  have  the  support  of  some 
of  the  higher  clergy.  It  was  indeed  a  smaller  programme, 
and  less  noble  also  in  that  its  aspirations  did  not  mount  so 
high.  But  these  characteristics  became  the  virtue  of  the 
new  movement  and  the  secret  of  its  success.  L'Avenir  with 
its  interests  in  Poland,  Belgium,  Ireland,  and  Germany,  with 
its  demands  for  reforms  really  needed  not  only  in  France 
but  all  over  the  world  as  well,  had  soared  into  the  realms  of 
the  impossible,  and  had  created  a  real  confusion  of  purposes. 
There  was  to  be  little  inconsistency  after  all,  with  the  early 
professions  of  this  offspring  of  La  Mennais'  group  and  their 
submission  to  Gregory  XVI.  In  the  end  they  found  that 
they  could  advocate  and  practice  the  same  doctrines,  in  mod- 
eration, as  they  had  done  in  1 830-1 831.  If  anywhere,  the 
inconsistency  lay  in  the  action  of  the  Papacy,  for  two  years 
later  it  permitted  the  Liberal  Catholics  to  recommence  their 
work,  and  yet  the  Encylical  "Mirari  Vos'*  was  not  disavowed. 
Such  a  contradiction  is  hard  to  explain.  It  only  indicates 
once  again  the  subordination  of  the  Vatican  to  the  influence 
of  things  temporal ;  Italy  was  now  comparatively  at  peace, 
there  was  no  danger.  The  Liberal  Catholics  might  speak 
again,  but  without  the  mention  of  politics.  The  whole  affair, 
on  Rome's  side  is  utter  casuistry.  There  were,  moreover, 
other  virtues  the  new  school  possessed  which  were  to  its 
advantage.  It  was  more  general,  less  individual ;  more  human, 
less  theoretical ;  and,  finally,  it  appealed  to  all  Catholics  and  not 
to  a  small  group  of  enthusiasts  in  that  it  required  its  members 
to  disregard  all  dynastic  questions,  all  political  turmoils  in 
France  and  elsewhere,  and  to  fight  for  the  rights  of  the 
church  alone.  The  era  of  Napoleon  and  Pius  VII  had  wit- 
nessed the  renaissance  of  Ultramontanism,  the  era  of  La 
Mennais  and  Gregory  XVI  had  seen  its  first  activity,  while 
the  era  of  Montalembert,  Ozanam  and  Piux  IX  witnessed 
its  transformation  from  the  temporal  to  the  spiritual  alone, 
and  its  triumph,  as  the  logical  result  of  such  a  change.  This 
gradual  evolution,  however,  did  not  prevent  it  from  exer- 


86 


rising  quite  an  influence  on  the  political  life  of  1840- 1848, 
years  when  Guizot  as  sole  agent  of  the  king  was  fostering 
a  policy  that  brought  to  its  inevitable  end  the  July  Monarchy. 
The  Liberal  Roman  Catholics  gained  their  victory  in  the 
Period  of  Decline  and  Transformation  of  the  Monarchical 
Principle  as  established  at  the  Revolution  of  1830. 

The  beginnings  of  the  new  movement  were  much  more 
humble,  much  less  important,  and  attended  with  far  less  eclat 
than  the  debut  of  the  former  school.  They  began  by  a  single 
act  of  charity. 

In  1834  a  young  student  at  Paris  wrote  to  M.  de  Falconnet : 
"I  am  surrounded  in  certain  respects  by  many  temptations ; 
from  every  side  they  cry  out  to  me,  they  urge  me  on,  they 
push  me  toward  a  career  entirely  different  from  my  studies; 
simply  because  God  and  my  education  have  endowed  me 
with  a  slight  'largesse'  of  ideas  and  a  certain  breadth  of 
tolerance,  they  seek  to  make  me  the  chief  of  'la  Jeunesse 
Catholique'  in  this  country.  ...  I  do  not  tell  you  this  from 
pride,  for,  on  the  contrary,  I  realize  only  too  well  my  own  Lettre,  7 
weakness,  I,  who  have  not  yet  attained  my  twenty-first  year :  Janv.,  1834 
their  compliments  rather  humiliate  me,  and  I  often  want  to  choisies 
laugh  at  my  own  importance.  But  I  have  no  cause  for  laugh- 
ter, on  the  contrary  I  suffer  unbelievable  torments  when  I 
realize  that  all  these  thoughts  may  rise  to  my  head,  in- 
toxicate me,  and  force  me  to  give  up  what  until  now  I  have 
regarded  as  my  chosen  career,  what  has  been  the  constant  wish 
of  my  parents,  and  what  I  really  feel  I  want  to  do  myself." 

Thus  wrote  Frederic  Ozanam,  a  student  in  Paris,  just  two 
years  after  the  fall  of  La  Mennais.  A  youth  delicate  in 
health  but  gifted  with  a  wonderful  energy,  he  was  destined 
to  become  the  founder  of  the  new  school,  and  later,  in  the 
highest  circle  of  learning  in  France,  a  distinguished  professor 

of  literature  and  history,  who  in  all  his  works  served  the     ~  , 
t-  •  1         j  1     ■•«•<■  Charles 
raitn,  and  by  his  life  as  a  scholar,  a  friend  of  the  poor  and     Huit,  99 

a  Catholic,  merits  all  the  honours  with  which  Rome  has  em- 
bellished his  memory  since  his  death  and  which  she  may  be 
holding  in  store  for  him.10   The  life  of  young  Ozanam  reads 

10  The  centenary  of  the  birth  of  Ozanam  was  celebrated  recently 
(1913)  in  Paris  and  there  has  been  talk  of  his  beatification.  Surely 
Rome  could  render  no  greater  honour  to  herself,  to  those  of  her  faith 

8/ 


v.  F.  Oza- 

nam, 
'Thilosophie 
Chretienne," 

I,  4 


v.  ex  La- 
martime  to 
Ozanam,  6 
Oct.,  1831 
"Pages 
choisies" 


like  a  poem  of  the  golden  ages  of  Christianity  and  yet  is 
tinged  with  enough  of  the  modern  thought  of  today  to 
serve  as  a  noble  example  to  his  successors.  His  works,  in 
turn,  possessed  all  the  beauties  of  Chateaubriand  with  none, 
happily,  of  his  faults.  They  were  scientific,  logical  and 
persuasive  but  lacked  the  absurd  sentimentality  of  the  earlier 
poet.  His  "£tudes  Germaniques,"  "History  of  Civilization 
in  the  Fifth  Century"  and  his  other  great  work  "Dante  and 
Catholic  Philosophy,"  revealed  Christianity  in  its  true  and 
original  light,  simple,  trusting  and  of  enduring  power.  Their 
effect  was  remarkable;  they  raised  the  hearts  of  those  readers 
who  believed  but  feared  for  their  belief,  and  showed  to  the 
proud  men  of  the  so-called  "Enlightenment"  the  very  light 
for  which  they  sought  to  create,  a  substitute  which  they 
failed  in  the  end  to  sustain.  This,  in  brief,  was  part  of  the 
service  Frederic  Ozanam  rendered  to  his  people.  To  others 
again  the  example  of  his  life,  thought  and  friendship  was  a 
still  greater  inspiration.11 

Such  was  Ozanam,  not  ascetic  but  moderate ;  unselfish  and 
modest.  Thus  it  was  that  at  the  very  moment  when  a  too 
proud  and  therefore  less  exact  science  cried  aloud  that  they 
were  sounding  the  death-knell  of  Christianity  in  France,  a 
young  and  ardent  believer,  their  equal  in  ability,  entered  the 
field  of  literature  to  defend  and  release  his  Faith.12  The 

and  to  the  Christian  world  at  large,  than  the  elevation  of  this  beautiful 
character,  the  father  of  a  family,  a  man  of  the  world  and  a  sincere 
believer,  to  the  ranks  of  the  many  prophets  and  martyrs  in  whose 
steps  he  has  followed. 

11  Introduction  of  Pierre  Chaveau  to  "F.  Ozanam,"  P.  A.  R.  D. 
Chaveau.  Intro,  (p  3)  :  "Toute  sa  vie  fut  une  simple  predication, 
par  la  parole,  par  l'ecriture  et  par  Taction." 

12  "C'est  qu'en  effet  que  cette  historie  litteraire  et  sociale  des  temps 
barbares  esquissee  d'une  main  si  habile  et  si  sure,  n'a  qu'un  but; 
mettre  en  lumiere  la  longue  et  laborieuse  education  dont  l'Europe  est 
redevable  au  Catholicisme."  Charles  Huit.  Ozanam  10.  Speaking  of 
his  versatility :  "En  parcourant  ce  vaste  ensemble  de  notes,  de  legons, 
d'ccrits,  on  croit  parcourir  1'atelier  d'un  sculpteur  qu'aurait  disparu 
jeune  encore,  et  qui  aurait  laisse  beaucoup  d'ourages  arrives  a  un  inegal 
degre  de  perfection.  II  y  a  la  des  statues  terminees  et  polies  avec 
une  extreme  diligence,  il  en  est  qui  ne  sont  qu'ebauchees  et  degrossies 
a  peine  mais  toutes  portent  l'empreinte  de  la  meme  ame  et  la  marque 


88 


greatness  of  Ozanam's  talent  could  not  be  denied  even  by  his 
strongest  opponents  and  the  men  less  likely  to  notice  him  be- 
cause of  his  religious  and  political  views  could  not  fail  to 
render  homage  to  him. 

In  1832,  then,  this  young  scholar  was  in  Paris,  a  student 
at  the  Sorbonne  and  the  Ecole  de  Droit.  The  conditions 
among  the  students  in  Paris  were  not  what  might  be  called 
happy,  there  was  much  restlessness  and  discussion.  Every 
day  the  University  was  becoming  more  proud  of  the  power 
given  it  by  the  "Code  Universitaire"  of  Napoleon,  and  less 
tolerant  of  its  possible  rivals.  Hence  its  hostile  attitude  to 
religion  and  to  all  those,  not  only  Catholics,  who  desired 
the  right  to  teach  their  own  systems  of  philosophy.  Alarmed 
to  a  considerable  extent  by  the  showing  made  in  the  courts 
by  the  "Agence"  in  the  "Ecole  Libre"  affair  (1831),  its  at- 
titude had  become  more  and  more  hostile  until  the  University 
itself  appeared  in  many  ways  to  be  the  very  center  of  anti-re- 
ligious feeling,  while  such  men  as  Jouffroy,  Quinet,  Michelet, 
Cousin  and  others  had  not  hesitated  to  attack  the  Catholic 
faith  in  their  lectures  and  in  their  works.  Jouffroy,  in  par- 
ticular, had  become  offensive  in  this  respect,  for,  regarding 
religion  as  a  system  of  philosophy  which  was  on  the  wane,  he 
had  criticised  it  in  this  light  and  referred  to  the  ancient  Chris- 
tian hierarchy  as  an  institution  of  the  past.  This  treatment 
could  not  help  but  arouse  in  the  hearts  of  some  of  his  young 
hearers  newly  come  from  homes  where  Christian  principles 
were  still  upheld,  a  decided  feeling  of  resentment,  and  it  was 
not  long  before  a  small  group  of  them,  having  common  sym- 
pathies in  this  respect,  formed  an  organized  opposition  for 
the  purpose  of  contradicting  either  by  writing  theses  or  by 
cross  questioning  their  lecturers,  certain  statements  made  by 
the  "Universitaires"  during  their  conferences.  In  1832 
Ozanam  wrote: 

"Twice  already  I  have  taken  my  part  in  this  good  work  j^pj^ 

by  addressing  to  them  (the  lecturers)  my  written  objections.  1832 

But  we  have  had  most  success  in  the   course  of  M  X  fprob-  "?a&?s~7, 

choisies, 

ably  Jouffroy).   On  two  occasions  he  has  attacked  the  Church ;  45 

de  la  meme  main."    F.  Ozanam.    Introduction  (2)  of  J.  J.  Amper  to 
Ozanam  Works,  p.  2. 


89 


the  first,  in  treating  the  Papacy  as  a  passing  institution,  born 
under  Charlemagne  and  dying  today ;  the  second  in  accusing 
the  clergy  of  having  always  favoured  despotism.  Our  re- 
plies, which  were  read  publicly,  have  had  the  best  result  on 
both  the  professor  and  on  his  hearers  who  have  applauded 
us.  But  the  most  useful  effect  in  this  work  has  ibeen  to 
demonstrate  to  'la  jeunesse  etudiante'  that  it  is  possible  to 
be  a  Catholic  and  have  common  sense,  to  love  religion  and 
liberty  at  one  and  the  same  time,  and  finally,  to  draw  them 
from  a  state  of  religious  indifference  and  accustom  them  to 
serious  discussion." 

This  passage,  particularly  the  latter  part,  is  interesting  in 
more  than  one  respect.    It  shows  not  only  the  tendency  of 
the  "Universitaires"  and  the  germs  of  a  second  nascent  re- 
ligious reaction  under  the  July  Monarchy,  but  it  suggests  also 
the  very  ideals  of  La  Mennais  and  the  earlier  school  "Dieu 
et  la  liberte,"  a  reaction  against  indifference  and  the  uphold- 
3ebidour     m&  °^        Christian  doctrine  based  on  "sens  commun."  Fol- 
E  et  E,     lowing  out  still  another  ideal  of  La  Mennais,  almost,  in  fact, 
432-3       seeming  to  have  read  his  injunction  "go,  like  the  twelve 
fishermen  and  reconquer  the  world,"  this  small  group  began 
to  organize.    In  1833  they  founded,  after  the  model  of  an 
older  society  known  as  the  "Society  of  Good  Works",  an 
organization  called  for  a  time  "les  Conferences  Saint  Vincent 
de  Paul,"  later  named  "la  societe  Saint  Vincent  de  Paul." 
It  was  essentially  a  lay  organization  governed  by  laymen  and 
was,  furthermore,  distinct  and  separate  from  all  political  so- 
cieties.   Its  aims  were  humble  and  consisted  of  the  dispensing 
of  charity,  the  instruction  of  the  poor  and  the  assuring  of  re- 
ligious consolation  to  prisoners  and  the  dying  poor.  The 
influence  of  this  new  society  rapidly  spread ;  people  were" 
attracted  to  it  by  its  very  simplicity  and  by  the  fact  that  it 
was  a  religious  guild  devoted  to  the  sole  interest  of  religion 
and  free  from  all  political  controversy.    To  the  joy  of  its 
founder  it  remained  so.    Phenomenal  progress  attended  its 
debut ;  within  a  year  it  had  four  branches  in  Paris  and  others 
in  Nimes,  Lyons,  Nantes,  Rennes,  Dijon,  Toulouse  and  Rome. 
Bailly  the  first  president,  then  organized  a  general  council 
at  Paris.    The  Society  Saint  Vincent  de  Paul  is  now  one 


90 


of  the  greatest  and  most  efficient  organizations  of  the  Roman 

Communion.    Branches  of  it  are  found  wherever  there  is  a 

Roman  Catholic  parish,  and  in  France,  the  country  of  its 

birth,  it  is  become  the  foremost  charitable  organization  in 

the  church.    Thus  the  very  first  effort  of  the  New  Liberal 

Catholic  Party  enjoyed  immediate  success,  and  the  young 

leader,  so  encouraged,  eagerly  set  to  work  on  other  plans.13 

But  the  Society  Saint  Vincent  de  Paul  did  not  satisfy  all 

their  needs ;  a  more  open  discussion  was  necessary,  and  this 

the  interest  of  the  new  society  would  not  permit.   The  leaders, 

therefore,  decided  on  a  bold  step.    Ozanam,  assisted  by  a 

few  of  his  supporters  Lejouteux,  de  Montazet  and  Madame 

Swetchine,  the  friend  and  adviser  of  the  young  enthusiasts, 

appealed  to  the  Archbishop  of  Paris,  Mgr.  de  Quelen,  asking 

him  to  throw  open  the  pulpit  of  Notre  Dame  to  the  discussion 

of  present  day  religious  questions.    Their  main  object  was 

to  combat  thereby  the  theories  of  the  University  and  the 

lectures  of  M.M.  JoufTroy  and  Michelet  in  particular.  But, 

de  Quelen,  who  had  had  enough  experience  with  the  too 

hasty  eagerness  of  their  predecessors  was  wary,  and  while  Debidour 

he  did  encourage  them  and  is  said  to  have  exclaimed  to  E  et  E,  433 

Ozanam:    "J'embrasse  en  votre  personne  toute  le  jeunesse 

catholique,"  he  was  nevertheless  unwilling  to   comply  with 

their  entire  request  and  undertook  to  supervise  and  even  Qiatelain° 

deliver  some  of  the  sermons  himself.    For  the  time  being  "Pages- 

...  >> 

the  conferences  had  little  success.  In  the  meantime,  however,  c  ^1^%' 
Lacordaire  had  found  his  calling,  and  by  his  lectures  to  the 
students  at  the  "College  Stanislaus"  he  was  accomplishing 
the  very  work  the  New  Liberal  Catholics  had  wished  to 
begin.  His  conferences  created  a  great  sensation,  became 
fashionable,  arid  were  attended  by  such  eminent  mem  as 
Chateaubriand,  Victor  Hugo,  Lamartine,  and  Berryer.  The 
new  group,  in  turn,  were  not  slow  to  attend,  and  soon  the 

13  In  May  of  that  year  Ozanam  wrote  :  'Taxes  de  bigots  par  nos 
camarades  impis,  de  liberaux,  et  temeraires  par  les  gens  ages;  inter- 
pelles  a  chaque  jour  sur  ce  que  nous  pensons,  sur  ce  que  nous  f aisons ; 
soumis  au  pouvoir  arbitraire  de  nos  professeurs  de  l'Universite  ayant 
a  craindre  quelquefois  pour  nous  memes  au  temps  des  emeutes,  et 
surtout  pour  nos  parents  eloignes  de  nous;  c'est  une  existence  bien 
bizarre  et  bien  ennuyeuse."   Ozanam,  16  Mai  1833.   Pages  choisies  65. 


91 


"College  Stanislaus"  became  the  rendezvous  of  the  Liberal 
Catholics  in  Paris.  Even  these  lectures,  however,  did  not 
escape  a  certain  amount  of  protest  from  the  reactionary  party 
at  Rome  and  the  Carlists  in  France.  But  the  voice  of  the 
latter  was  not,  for  the  moment,  strong  enough  and  the  lec- 
tures continued  for  a  time  to  enjoy  the  brilliant  success 
they  had  met  with  in  January  1834.14 

Yet  another  circumstance  favoured  them;  the  efforts  of 
de  Quelen,  Frayssinous  and  MacCarthy  at  Notre  Dame  had 
not  met  with  much  success  and  when  the  Young  Catholics 
appealed  a  second  time,  the  Archbishop  listened  to  them.  In 
1835  tne  pulpit  of  Notre  Dame  was  opened  to  Lacordaire,  a 
former  editor  of  VAvenir.  To  the  eyes  of  many  it  seemed 
in  itself  a  tardy  recognition  of  the  effects  of  the  earlier  school. 
The  success  was  immediate.  One  historian  gives  a  description 
of  the  scenes  enacted  weekly  at  Notre  Dame  well  worth  a 
brief  citation:15 

"To  watch  them  only  during  the  hours  of  waiting,  talking, 
unfolding  their  newspapers,  reading  profane  books  and  turn- 
ing their  backs  to  the  altar,  you  would  have  easily  have  rec- 
ognized that  this  assembly  was  not  composed  of  those  ac- 
customed to  frequent  churches.  It  was,  indeed,  the  new 
Society  of  the  Nineteenth  Century,  just  as  it  had  emerged  from 
the  Revolution  of  1830.  To  quite  an  extent  dechristianized, 
it  was  that  very  society  which  after  having  assisted  as  indif- 
ferent or  amused  spectators  at  the  sack  of  St.  Germain  de 
l'Auxerrois,  four  years  later  was  forming  about  a  Christian 
pulpit  such  an  audience  as  had  not  been  seen,  perhaps,  since 
the  time  of  St.  Bernard ;  it  was  this  society  which  thus  re- 
established its  broken  relations  with  religion  and  by  its  very 
numbers  gave  to  Catholicism  formerly  proscribed,  a  new 
proof  of  its  importance  and  popularity;  it  was  a  sudden  tran- 
sition from  hate  to  honour  which  those  Christians  who  had 
seen  the  two  periods  before  and  after  1835  were  later  unable 
to  recall  without  their  eyes  filling  involuntarily  with  tears.  .  .  . 
As  if  to  complete  the  contrast  and  to  mark  more  exactly 
the  progress  made,  the  prelate  who  presided  at  these  services 
and  for  whose  benediction  the  crowd  respectfully  inclined 

14  d'Haussonville  Lacordaire,  ch.  V. 
"Debidour,  E  et  E  433-4. 

92 


was  that  very  archbishop  who  was  yesterday  chased  from  Thureau- 
his  sacked  palace  and  forced  to  hide  in  the  capital  of  his  eT^e', 
diocese."  9"12 

This  description  cannot  be  the  exaggeration  of  a  later 
historian  for  we  have  Ozanam's  own  words  as  confirmation.16 
But  Lacordaire's  success  was  not  to  be  repeated  the  following 
year  for,  the  Conservatives  and  Carlists  in  the  church,  most 
of  whom  were  Gallicans,  taking  fright  at  the  phenomenal 
success  of  the  "Neo-Catholics"  as  they  now  began  to  call 
them,  brought  pressure  to  bear  on  Mgr.  de  Quelen.  Conse- 
quently the  next  year  the  Conferences  were  taken  up  by 
another,  de  Ravignan,  who  performed  his  duty  well  but  who 
did  not  obtain  the  sensational  success  of  Lacordaire. 

At  this  point  the  question  may  well  be  asked:  why  had  the 
"Neo-Catholics"  met  with  such  good  fortune?  It  could  not 
have  come  about  through  the  eagerness  of  their  young  leaders 
alone.  The  answer  is  found  in  the  change  of  mind  that  had 
taken  place  among  the  people  many  of  whom  were  now 
ready,  willing  and  eager  to  receive  the  good  news  the  "Neo- 
Catholics"  brought  them.  There  are  three  principal  reasons 
for  the  transformation  that  was  taking  place  in  the  minds  of 
so  many  men  of  the  July  Revolution.  One  was  the  fact  that 
the  church  now  seemed  to  have  lost  all  vestiges  of  political 
power;  another  cause  was  that  the  general  mental  tendency 
of  the  age  was  a  deep  melancholy,  great  discouragement  and 
a  consequent  seeking  for  something  assured  and  fixed  to  which 
they  might  attach  themselves ;  while  the  third  reason  was 
the  favourable  attitude  of  the  "Ministry  of  All  Talents"  at 
the  outset  of  the  "Neo-Catholic"  movement. 

19  Le  grand  rendezvous  des  jeunes  gens  catholiques  et  non-catholiques 
cette  annee  a  ete  a  Xotre  Dame.  Tu  as  sans  doute  entendu  parler  des 
conferences  de  l'abbe  Lacordaire.  Elles  n'ont  eu  qu'un  defaut,  de  n'etre 
trop  peu  nombreuses.  II  en  a  fait  huit  au  milieu  d'un  auditoire  de 
pres  de  six  mille  hommes  sans  compter  les  femmes.  Ces  conferences  sur 
l'figlise  sur  sa  necessite,  sur  son  infaillibilite,  sa  constitution,  son  his- 
toire,  etc.,  ont  toutes  ete  tres  belles ;  mais  la  derniere  a  ete  d'une  elo- 
quence superieure  a  tout  ce  que  j'ai  jamais  entendu.  Mgr.  de  Quelen, 
qui  avait  assiste  a  toutes  les  conferences  a  adresse  la  derniere  fois 
a  M.  Lacordaire  des  remerciements  solennels  et  l'a  nomine  chanoine 
de  la  Cathedrale.  Voila  qui  nous  met  du  baume  dans  le  sang."  Ozanam, 
2  Mai  1835.   Pages  choisies  75. 


93 


As  soon  as  it  became  evident  to  the  people  of  the  time 
that  the  church  had  lost  her  political  prestige  and  was  in  fact, 
being  persecuted  by  her  enemies,  the  "Universitaires,"  the 
attitude  of  the  people  seemed  to  change  and  many  of  those 
who  had  been  the  first  to  pursue  and  attack  the  Catholic 
faith  now  turned  to  it  as  the  symbol  of  so  many  other  in- 
stitutions now  menaced  by  the  direction  the  new  government 
was  following.  The  church  appeared  to  them  in  a  new  light, 
it  seemed  an  institution  noble  yet  humble,  necessary  and 
meekly  asking  their  support.  If  men  did  not  believe  in  it, 
they  were  at  least  disposed  to  respect  it,  and  to  defend  it  if 
menaced.  The  criticism  of  religion  and  the  caricatures  on 
the  subject,  so  common  a  form  of  attack  in  the  early  days 
of  the  July  Monarchy,  now  seemed  to  be  fast  disappearing, 
and  even  those  who  might  have  scorned  its  doctrines  recognized 
its  political  utility  and  were  not  unwilling  to  assist  indirectly 
in  its  reestablishment  among  the  people.17  The  situation,  then, 
was  not  ideal  but  was  certainly  far  improved  from  that  of 
former  times ;  at  least  a  political  sympathy  had  been  created. 

The  second  fact  favouring  a  religious  reaction  is  probably 
the  most  important  of  the  three — the  actual  mental  condition 
among  the  people  of  the  time.    It  is  a  reason  more  human 
v.  chapter    and  more  comprehensive,  perhaps,  but  none  the  less  exact. 
1  To  understand  it,  however,  it  is  necessary  to  recall  how  in  the 

early  days  of  the  July  Monarchy,  Frenchmen  again  embued 
Thureau     wlth  an  overconfident  pride,  the  inevitable  result  of  years  of 
Dangin,      Revolution,  had  sought  to  construct  not  only  an  original  system 
II,  357-8     0£  political  science,  but  of  philosophical  thought  as  well.  Some 
of  these  creations  had  lived  a  short  time  but  all,  in  the  end 
failed.    Then,  their  self-established  creeds  and  philosophies 
failing,  their  political  ideals  denied  them,  the  men  of  1830 
found  themselves  before  a  great  chasm  which  they  themselves 

17  "Ce  n'est  pas  que  tous  ceux  qui  se  taisent  ainsi  aient  conQu  un  grand 
amour  pour  la  religion ;  mais  il  est  evident  qu'au  moins  ils  n'ont  plus 
d'haines  contre  elle.  C'est  deja  un  grand  pas.  La  plupart  des  liberaux 
que  les  passions  irreligieuses  avaient  jadis  pousses  a  le  tete  de  Impo- 
sition, tiennent  maintenant  un  langage  tout  different  de  celui  qu'ils 
tenaient  alors.  Tous  reconnaissent  l'utilite  politique  d'une  religion  et 
deplorent  la  faiblesse  de  l'esprit  religieux  dans  la  population."  de 
Tocqueville  Corresp.  ined.  Mai,  1835.    I.  48. 


94 


had  created  and  over  which  they  knew  not  how  to  pass.  At 
first  too  confident  in  their  own  hand-made  institutions  they 
had  been  able  to  forget  the  gap  that  had  suddenly  opened 
before  them,  in  the  distraction  of  the  rapidly  passing  political 
events  and  the  hopes  attending  the  early  days  of  the  July 
Monarchy.  By  1835,  however,  they  were  weary  of  the  rapid 
political  pace  they  had  set,  and  many  also  were  beginning 
to  feel  that  perhaps,  after  all  this  monarchy  that  they  had 
created  was  not  to  fulfill  their  highest  hopes.  It  was  not  long, 
therefore,  until  all  except  those  vitally  concerned,  had  lost  much 
of  their  former  interest  in  the  July  Monarchy.  Already  that 
very  mental  apathy  had  set  in  which  Victor  Hugo  had  de- 
scribed in  his  preface  to  "le  Roi  s'amuse."  For  many,  then, 
the  political  interest  with  which  they  had  served  to  veil  the 
chasm  which  they  must  one  day  cross,  was  fast  disappearing, 
and,  as  they  gazed  over  the  abyss  now  become  more  evident, 
they  found  on  the  other  side  a  deep  impenetrable  mist  made 
by  their  own  minds.  "Le  dixhuitieme  siecle  a  eu  le  plaisir 
de'  l'incredulite  nous  en  avons  eu  la  peine,  nous  en  sentons  le 
vide,"  cried  one  of  their  number.18  Furthermore,  this  con- 
dition of  melancholy  prevailed  not  only  among  those  who 
sought  for  light  and  were  beginning  to  find  it,  but  among 
the  most  hostile  opponents  of  religion  as  well.19  All  was  per- 
meated with  a  profound  melancholy  and  a  tone  of  utter  des- 
pair. And  so  men's  minds  were  prepared  to  receive  the  words 
of  the  young  enthusiasts. 

18  de  Sacy,  "Varietes,"  II.  6,  "de  la  Reaction  religeuse,"  he  con- 
tinues :  "C'est  le  moment  ou  il  n'y  a  plus  rien  a  atteigner,  rien  a  detruire 
.  .  .  ou  Ton  s'apergoit  trop  souvent,  non  sans  surprise,  que  Ton  a  fait  le 
vide  en  soi-meme  et  autour  de  soi,  ce  jour  de  reveil,  c'est  notre 
epoque  .  .  .  cette  incredulite,  avec  laquelle  le  i8e  siecle  marchait  si 
legerement,  pleine  de  confiance  et  de  folle  gaiete,  est  un  poids  acca- 
blant  pour  nous,  nous  levons  les  yeux  en  haut,  nous  y  cherchons,  une 
lumiere  eteinte  nous  gemissons  de  ne  plus  la  voir  bruler." 

19  v.  Jouffroy,  "Comment  les  dogmes  finissent."  He  uttered  a  veritable 
wail  of  despondency.  In  contrast  to  this  despondency  was  the  attitude 
of  the  Neo-Catholics.  Ozanam  writes :  "Tant  que  durera  la  vie 
terrestre  du  genre  humain,  le  mal  est  toujours  quelque  part  sur  la 
terre,  tantot  comme  tyran,  tantot  comme  esclave.  Jamais  il  ne  fait  de 
si  redoubtables  efforts  que  lors  qu'il  voit  sa  tyrannie  lui  echapper; 
pour  ressaisir  son  sceptre  qui  tombe  il  remit  toutes  ses  forces ;  a  toute 
reaction  religeuse  correspond  necessairement  une  reaction  contraire  du 


95 


The  attitude  of  the  existing  ministry  was  the  third  factor 
influencing  the  beginnings  of  the  "Neo-Catholic"  revival.  In 
this  factor  the  new  party  eventually  found  a  real  cause  for 
encouragement.  The  "Ministry  of  All  Talents"  were  not  blind 
to  the  mental  tendency  we  have  just  been  considering,  and 
they  soon  adopted  the  policy  of  encouraging  the  prevailing 
disposition  to  respect  religion.  From  the  very  outset  they 
had  recognized  the  political  utility  of  Catholicism.  The  man 
most  responsible  for  the  favorable  attitude  of  the  Broglie 
Cabinet  to  religion  was  the  Minister  of  Public  Instruction.  Al- 
though a  Protestant,  Guizot  did  not  fail  to  see  the  very  great 
interest  the  government  should  have  to  favour  and  foster  such 
a  revival  as  the  "Neo-Catholics"  were  trying  to  bring  about. 
Upon  his  entry  into  the  Cabinet,  therefore,  he  set  to  work 
at  once  to  resolve  the  difficult  problem  which  had  arisen  as 
to  the  proper  functions  of  teacher  and  priest  and  to  recon- 
cile them.  Such  a  policy  alone,  he  thought,  would  settle  the 
question  of  instruction  in  France. 

"If  the  priest  defies  or  isolates  himself  from  the  instructor 
or  if  the  instructor  regards  himself  as  the  independent  rival 
of  the  priest  and  not  as  his  faithful  auxiliary,  the  moral  value 
of  the  school  is  lost."20 

Pimpiete.  Aussi  tandisque  le  desert  se  fait  autour  des  idoles  du 
XVIIP  siecle,  tandisque  la  solitude  de  nos  temples  se  peuple  de 
nouveau,  tandisque  l'indifrerence  s'aneantit  et  que  M.  Lacordaire  fait 
tonner  la  parole  de  Dieu  sur  une  auditoir  e  de  six  mille  hommes,  le 
rationalisme  n'est  point  oisif;  il  multiplie  ses  revues  periodiques,  il 
organise  une  propagande  seductive  autour  des  jeunes  gens,  il  enfonce 
de  ses  emissaires  et  assiege  les  hommes  les  plus  illustres,  il  provoque 
la  defection  entre  ceux  qui  naguere  etaient  nos  gloires ;  il  detrone  l'abbe 
de  La  Mennais  de  ces  hauteurs  ou  son  genie  et  sa  foi  l'avaient  place; 
il  nous  fait  trembler  pour  la  muse  virginale  de  Lamartine  .  .  .  ces 
choses  sont  tristes  mais  elles  sont  vraies.  Nous  sommes  punis,  catho- 
liques,  d'avoir  mis  plus  de  confiance  dans  la  genie  de  nos  grands 
hommes  que  dans  la  puissance  de  Dieu.  Nous  sommes  punis  de  nous 
etre  enorgueillis  en  leur  personne  d'avoir  repousse  avec  quelque  fierte  les 
efforts  de  l'incredule  et  de  lui  avoir  montre  pour  nous  justifier  a  ses 
yeux,  nos  philosophies  et  nos  poetes  au  lieu  de  lui  montrer  l'eternelle 
croix."    Ozanam,  16  Mai  1835.    Pages  choisies  77. 

20  Guizot's  own  words,  Bardoux  67.  Guizot  is  said  to  have  declared 
before  the  chambers:  "L'instruction  morale  et  religieuse  n'est  pas, 
comme  le  calcul,  la  geometrie,  l'orthographie,  une  leqon  qui  se  donne 


96 


Following  out  this  theory  Guizot  proceeded  to  widen  the 
bounds  of  religious  privilege.    In  the  very  first  year  of  his 
administration  as  Minister  of  Public  Instruction  he  passed  a  La™  °Jg^ne 
law  allowing  the  clergy  to  become  members  of  the  Committee 
supervising  primary  instruction.    Such  overtures,  however,  did 
not  meet  without  opposition  in  the  Chamber  and  the  same  Debidour, 
year  through  the  combined  efforts  of  Dupin  and  Isambert  laws  E  et  E  345 
were  passed  depriving   the  clergy   of   membership   in  the 
"Conseils  Generaux"  and  reducing  the  number  of  dioceses.21  Thureau 
Nevertheless,  the  church  had  made  a  decided  advance  along  Dangin, 
the  path  of  governmental  recognition  and  the  law  of  1833  by  342' 
allowing  the  clergy  to  exert  their  influence  in  the  Committee 
on  primary  instruction  practically  allowed  the  existence  of 
private  primary  schools  (for  the  most  part  religious)  together   v.  Journal 
with  the  public  schools  of  the  first  grade  in  each  commune.   dQ*t  \s3S 
Later,  in  1836,  Guizot  proposed  another  law  that  would  have  Moniteur, 
allowed  the  free  concurrence  of  all  private  institutions  both  I4I^5in' 
primary,  secondary  and  superior  (University)  with  State  in- 
stitutions, but  this  was  defeated.    He  had  selected  an  un- 
favourable opportunity  to  present  his  law,  for  it  was  on  the 
very  eve  of  the  dissolution  of  the  "Ministry  of  All  Talents." 
This  Cabinet  had,  however,  done  much  for  the  cause  of  the 
church  in  recognizing  its  rights  and  in  declaring  in  no  dubious 
terms  the  right  of  the  church  to  share  in  matters  of  public 
instruction ;  and  later  it  was  to  prove  a  by  no  means  unim- 

en  passant  a  une  heure  determinee  apres  laquelle  il  n'en  est  pas  plus 
question.  La  partie  scientifique  est  la  moindre  de  toutes  dans  l'instruc- 
tion  religieuse.  Ce  qu'il  faut  c'est  que  l'atmosphere  generale  de  l'ecole 
soit  morale  et  religieuse.  .  .  .  Prenez  garde  d'un  fait  qui  n'a  jamais 
eclate  avec  autant  d'evidence  que  de  notre  temps  .  .  .  le  develope- 
ment  intellectuel  seul,  separe  du  developement  moral  et  religieux, 
devient  un  principe  d'orgueil,  d'insubordination,  d'egoisime  et  par 
consequent  de  danger  pour  la  societe."  Guizot's  own  words.  Thu- 
reau  Dangin,  Hist.  Mon.,  Juillet  II,  341. 

21  Among  the  opposition  the  general  opinion  seemed  to  be  that  the 
"Doctrinaires"  were  again  becoming  allied  with  a  liberal  church  party. 
One  paper  criticized  the  ministry  in  the  following  terms :  "L'associa- 
tion  doctrinaire  de  vouloir  relever  le  clerge  catholique  de  l'impuissance 
dont  l'avait  frappe  la  resolution  de  Juillet"  and  their  policy  was 
denounced  as  "un  systeme  suivi  de  la  reaction  en  faveour  du  clerge." 
Constitutionnel,  22  Mai  1833. 


97 


v.  London 
Times, 
Jan.  18, 
1833 


Montalem- 

bert, 
"Discours," 
19  Mai,  6 
Juillet,  1837 


Foisset, 
Monta- 
lembert," 

chs. 
4  and  5 


portant  precedent  that  in  the  first  years  of  their  activity  the 
"Neo-Catholics"  had  found  political  allies  timid  but  willing  to 
accord  them  the  rights  they  demanded,  in  spite  of  the  protests 
of  the  opposition.  This  opposition,  in  turn,  instead  of  proving 
its  boasted  strength,  betrayed  rather  its  own  inherent  weakness 
by  its  show  of  fear. 

No  party,  no  matter  how  ardent  and  sincere  its  protests 
to  the  contrary,  can,  long  exist  without  entering  the  field  of 
polemics,  and  the  "Neo-Catholics"  were  not  exceptions  to  this 
rule.  In  fact,  the  need  of  some  sort  of  representation  in  the 
arena  of  politics  became  more  urgent  every  day.  Happily, 
they  did  not  lack  fighters  who  would  defend  their  cause — 
not  by  riot  as  had  been  the  case  with  their  too  enthusiastic 
brethren  of  the  provinces  at  Clichy  in  1833,  but  in  the 
pulpit  and  in  the  chambers.  Their  preachers  were  already 
well  known  and  had  been  continuing  their  good  work  for 
some  time ;  de  Ravignan  at  Notre  Dame,  Lacordaire  repeating 
in  the  the  provinces  his  success  at  Paris,  and  Dupanloup  at 
Orleans.  A  parliamentary  champion  now  appeared  in  the 
person  of  Charles  de  Montalembert,  peer  of  France.  It  is  at 
this  time  that  Ozanam,  the  real  founder  of  the  new  group, 
becomes  less  prominent  as  the  movement  assumes  more  the 
aspect  of  a  political  controversy.  His  activity  within  the 
church,  however,  lasted  until  the  day  of  his  death.  To 
the  stronger  and  more  able,  physically,  fell  the  duty  of  fight- 
ing for  her  political  rights.  It  was  not  until  1841  that  the 
leaders  formed  the  groups  around  them  into  any  definite 
political  party,  but  from  1836  they  were  regarded  as  a  by  no 
means  negligible  faction  in  the  political  world.  What,  then, 
were  the  political  opinions  of  the  leaders?  Montalembert  in 
two  speeches  before  the  chamber  of  Peers  had  declared  him- 
self "partisan  sincere  de  la  Revolution  de  Juillet,  ami  loyal 
de  la  dynastie  que  la  representait."  Lacordaire,  on  the  other 
hand  was  not  so  outspoken.  He  protested,  "je  n'ai  jamais 
ecrit  une  ligne  qui  puisse  autoriser  la  pensee  que  je  suis  un 
democrate"  and  he  added  that  he  also  had  not  wished  to  ally 
himself  with  the  new  government.  This  statement  should 
not  be  regarded  in  the  light  of  an  evasion  or  a  quibble ;  it  is 
simply  an  expression  of  the  lack  of  party  interest  Lacordaire 
professed  in  politics,  a  matter  entirely  subordinate,  in  his  eyes. 

98 


to  religion.22  Much  later,  Louis  Veuillot  (soon  to  become  the 
editor  of  the  "Neo-Catholic,"  paper  YUnivers)  speaking  of 
their  political  attitude,  said:  "We  accepted  1830  with  its 
charter,  its  king,  its  dynasty,  and  we  exerted  ourselves  simply 
to  obtain  from  them  the  rights  of  the  church.  We  had  re- 
solved to  lean  neither  to  right  nor  to  left  and  adopted  the 
policy  of  no  alliance  with  the  Legitimists,  no  alliance  with 
any  faction  of  the  revolutionary  parties."23  It  is  not  difficult 
to  imagine  how  the  Gallicans  received  the  appearance  of  a 
church  party  entertaining  such  political  doctrines  and  declin- 
ing to  ally  themselves  with  them.  Both  factions,  however, 
mindful  of  the  Pope's  displeasure  with  Mgr.  de  Quelen  at 
an  earlier  date,  refrained  for  the  time  from  any  political 
unions  with  other  parties.24 

From  1836  the  government  had  a  difficult  part  to  play  in 
respect  to  religion.  The  office  of  Minister  of  Public  Instruc- 
tion came  to  require  a  man  of  almost  infinite  tact  and  patience, 
for  he  had  to  steer  a  course  between  a  discontented  clergy, 
part  of  whom  formed  the  nucleus  of  a  religious  reaction, 
and  a  University,  now  become  the  center  of  a  Voltarian  culte. 
It  will  be  remembered  that  during  Guizot's  tenure  of  office 
he  had  shown  himself  favourable  to  the  religious  reaction;  an 
attitude  which  he  confirmed  by  articles  published  after  the 
fall  of  the  "Ministry  of  All  Talents."25  Under  the  Mole  Cabi- 
net the  new  party  made  a  further  gain,  but  more  in  the  form 
of  an  internal  strengthening  and  upbuilding.  Mole  had  said : 
"The  clergy  shall  be  the  sublime  preserver  of  public  order," 
and  then  he  had  proceeded  to  leave  the  church  free  to  act 
in  its  own  internal  affairs.  It  was  exactly  the  opportunity 
the  "Neo-Catholics"  needed.  Their  progress  must  not  be 
too  rapid  and  Mole's  policy  allowed  them  the  opportunity  for 
internal  development.  In  1835  Lacordaire  had  retired  from 
the  pulpit  of  Notre  Dame  and  had  spent  the  following  year 
carrying  the  conferences  into  the  provinces.    This  work  com- 


Ibid.,  Oct., 

1838 
"Du  Catho- 
licisme  et 
de  la  Phi- 
losophic en 
France 


Thureau 
Dangin, 
E  et  E,  63 


v.  d'Haus- 
sonville, 
Chap.  VI 


Thureau 
Dangin, 
II,  339 


22  Lacordaire's  own  words.  Thureau  Dangin,  E  et  E  57.  d'Haus- 
sonville.  134. 

23  Louis  Veuillot's  own  words.    Thureau  Dangin,  E  et  E  59. 

24  Le  Correspondant,  10  Sept.  1872. 

25  V.  Revue  Franchise,  Few  1838.  "De  la  Religion  dans  les  Societes 
Modernes." 


99 


V.  Genin,  pleted,  he  made  a  second  visit  to  Rome  and  while  there  he 
cm  l'Etat6  receiyeQl  the  habit  of  St.  Dominique.  Then,  returning  to  France 
he  reestablished  the  order  within  its  very  borders.  This  ac- 
tion has  two  significant  phases ;  it  marks  the  commencement  of 
the  return  to  France  of  the  orders — the  Trappists,  Jesuits, 
and  Carthusians  came  back  in  flocks ;  but  it  may  also  be 
said  to  denote  the  alliance  of  certain  of  these  orders  with  the 
"Neo-Catholic"  movement;  Lacordaire  of  I'Avenir  and  "Con- 
ferences de  Notre  Dame"  fame  a  Dominican !  The  contrast 
is  still  more  heightened  by  the  appointment  of  de  Ravignan 
his  successor  at  Notre  Dame,  as  provincial  of  the  Company 
of  Jesus  in  France.  For  the  moment  it  really  seemed  as  if 
the  eyes  of  Rome  were  opening  to  the  importance  of  the 
"Jeunesse  Liberale. "  Other  orders  quickly  followed  in  the 
footsteps  of  their  more  daring  predecessors.    In  1837  there 

were  four  hundred  establishments  of  the  Lazaristes  in  France 
v.  Thureau  .  . 

Dangin,       with  a  capital  of  20,000,000  francs,  while  the  Sisters  of 

III,  ch.  IX  Charity  numbered  six  thousand.  Protests  from  the  opposition 
became  more  frequent  but  the  attitude  of  Mole  and  the 
"Juste  Milieu"  party  was  a  guarantee  of  protection  to  them. 
Mole's  action,  however,  was  not  entirely  disinterested,  for  he 
saw  in  the  church  a  barrier  against  republican  and  socialistic 
doctrines.  Still  another  fact  now  apparent  for  the  first  time, 
assisted  the  new  group ;  Louis  Philippe  began  to  coquette 
with  them.  He  now  seemed  desirous  of  forgetting  his  rev- 
olutionary origin ;  What  better  way  offered  itself  than  in 
the  protection  and  support  of  the  church?     The  crosses 

Debidour,  that  had  been  torn  down  from  the  tribunals  at  the  time  of 
E  et  E  4^7 

'  the  July  Revolution  were  now  set  up  and  adorned  once  more 
all  the  public  courts.  It  was  indeed,  a  curious  change  that 
had  come  about.  What  had  the  opposition  to  say  to  it? 
Their  view  is  curious : 

"We  are  Catholics,  barely  Catholics  by  name,  Catholics 
without  faith,  without  practice,  and  they  warn  us  lest  we  fall 
under  the  yoke  of  the  ultramontane  orders !    In  truth,  let 
us  look  at  ourselves  more  closely,  and  let  us  try  to  become 
Journal  des  better  acquainted  with  ourselves.    Let  us  believe  in  the  ap- 
4  Janv      pearance  and  in  the  truths  of  those  liberties,  those  institutions 
1839       of  which  we  are  so  proud.    Great  philosophers  that  we  are 
let  us  at  least  believe  in  our  philosophy." 

100 


Shortly  after  the  return  of  the  orders  to  France  Lacordaire 
published  his  "Memoire  pour  le  retablissement  en  France  des 
Freres  Precheurs."  The  same  year  witnessed  the  appearance 
of  Louis  Blanc's  "Organization  of  Labour."  It  seemed  as  if 
the  government  would  have  to  choose  between  the  two  ex- 
tremes these  books  represented.  In  the  interim,  a  progressive 
ministry  came  in  and  by  Thiers'  appointment,  Cousin,  a  known 
enemy  of  the  church  despite  his  many  protestations  to  the 
contrary,  became  Minister  of  Public  Instruction.  The  "Neo- 
Catholics"  restrained  themselves  no  longer,  but  demanded  the 
privilege  of  the  charter  not  for  themselves  alone  but  for  all. 
Their  protest  against  Cousin  was  not  long  in  vain,  for,  Louis 
Philippe,  duped  by  Metternich,  soon  caused  Thiers'  withdrawal 
and  Guizot  was  called  in  to  repair  the  evil  he  had  done. 

Throughout  the  entire  period  of  Parliamentary  Rivalry  and 
Decline,  then,  "La  Jeunesse  Romantique  et  Catholique"  of 
Paris  continued  to  gain  more  adherents  and  sympathy  in 
the  political,  intellectual  and  social  world.  The  chronicles 
of  the  time  are  filled  with  accounts  of  the  activities  and 
interests  of  such  men  as  the  leaders  we  have  mentioned,  and 
too,  of  Ampere,  of  the  salon  of  Madame  Swetchine  and  the 
beautiful  story  of  Soeur  Rosalie.  It  is  true,  these  are  all 
individual  cases  but  they  may  be  taken  as  reliable  indications 
of  what  was  going  on  under  the  surface  of  Society — a  re- 
generation of  humanity  and  of  the  church,  as  La  Mennais 
had  called  for  eight  years  before,  and  once  humanity  and 
the  church  set  on  the  road  to  reform  under  the  guidance  of 
these  leaders,  the  preparation  for  a  great  struggle  for  liberties 
not  Gallican,  but  those  promised  by  the  Charter  to  which  they 
had  all  sworn  allegiance.  Why  were  Louis  Philippe  and  his 
ministers  so  blind  to  this  regenerating  force  now  preparing? 
Why  did  they  not  share  in  its  reform,  adopt  its  sincerity  and 
emulate  its  noble  aims  and  acts?  While  the  old  institution, 
a  monarchical  principle,  was  entering  upon  its  last  phase,  a 
new-old  institution  returning  to  its  own  had  entered  upon  its 
ascendancy.  Patient  hands  were  to  show  the  church,  no 
longer  mistaken  in  her  children,  the  way  to  success — a  way 
requiring  the  abnegation  of  old  and  perhaps  wrongly  sought 
glories,  in  order  to  gain  the  great  prizes  of  the  spirit.  On  the 
26th  of  August,  1839,  Frederic  Ozanam  wrote  to  Lacordiare: 


v.  Jean 
Laur,  "La 

Femme 
Chretienne 
au  XIXe 

'Siecle?' 


"Lettres," 
Madame 
Swetchine 
L.  Masson, 
"Soeur 
Rossalie" 


101 


"Every  day  the  number  of  those  among  the  clergy  increases 
who  understand  that  virtue  without  science  is  not  sufficient 
in  the  priesthood.    And  too,  among  the  influential  laymen 
Ozanam     who,  in  past  years  have  so  often  interfered  in  our  diocesan 
Lacordaire,  affairs,  there  are  now  those  who  are  beginning  to  see  that 
26  Oct.,     the  faith  suffers  from  the  alliance  with  political  passions  and 
Pages-      interests — an  alliance  with  which  they  have  compromised  it." 
Ch°o6  CS'  ^esson  was  bem&  rapidly  learned ;  the  struggle  was  no 

longer  far  off. 


102 


CHAPTER  V 


THE  "XEO-CATHOLICS"  AND  PUBLIC 
INSTRUCTION 

The  year  1840  witnessed  the  inauguration  of  a  policy  of 
personal  government  under  a  ministry  the  nominal  head  of 
which  was  Soult,  but  the  actual  leader  of  the  Cabinet  was 
Guizot.  This  policy  lasted  eight  years  and  during  the  period 
when  it  was  enforced  many  important  movements  took  place, 
the  most  prominent  being:  the  rise  of  Radicalism  engendered 
by  changed  economic  conditions,  the  transformation  of  the 
July  Monarchy  from  a  professedly  liberal  institution  to  the 
reactionary  principles  of  Metternich  and  the  Holy  Alliance, 
the  struggle  for  liberty  of  instruction  carried  on  by  the  "Neo- 
Catholics,"  the  growth  of  the  Socialism  of  Louis  Blanc  and  the 
institution  of  Reform  Banquets  by  Lamartine. 

The  period  of  Rivalry  and  Parliamentary  Decline  had  nearly 
laid  low  the  July  Monarchy.1  There  followed  a  period  of  an 
apparently  scrupulous  form  of  parliamentary  government  chat 
gave  to  France  a  semblance  of  outward  stability  and  hid  from 
many  observant  eyes  the  fact  that  the  July  Monarchy  was 
undergoing  a  process  of  inward  decay.  In  fact  so  strong  was 
the  external  appearance  of  the  country,  that  most  of  France 
and  many  outside  observers  were  astounded  when  the  govern- 
ment fell.  They  had  failed  to  perceive  that  for  over  eight  years 
it  had  been  rotting  at  the  core  from  a  political  disease,  corrup- 
tion, the  most  fatal  and  inevitable  malady  of  every  government 
that  does  not  know  its  own  mind.  When  the  July  Monarchy 
had  been  founded  the  bourgeoisie  had  believed  that  in  so  doing 
they  were  saving  France  not  only  from  anarchy  and  another 
phase  of  the  dreadful  revolution,  but  were  also  securing 
national  honour  and  safeguarding  the  vested  interests.  How 

1  About  this  time  Lamartine  is  said  to  have  remarked :  "La  France 
est  une  nation  qui  s'ennuie."    Thureau  Dangin  105. 


103 


had  they  been  deceived !  Vested  interests  alone  had  been  pre- 
served, and  these  in  turn  were  becoming  more  and  more  inse- 
cure through  the  rise  of  Socialism ;  Louis  Blanc's  ideas  as  exem- 
plified in  the  national  workshop  would  reverse  all  idea  of  vested 
property.2  In  securing  national  honour  they  had  met  with  equal 
failure.  It  was  denied  in  the  Ancona  affair  and  again  by  the 
Quadrilateral  Treaty.  Nor  had  they  succeeded  in  preventing 
a  still  greater  evil,  for,  they  had  seen  anarchy  in  the  streets  of 
Lyons  in  1834  and  in  1836,  in  the  April  Days  at  Paris,  and  in 
the  Morey-Fieschi  episode.  And  all  these  disturbances  were  re- 
peated during  Guizot's  last  term  of  office !  It  is  not  surprising, 
then,  to  find  at  this  time  a  marked  tendency  to  return  to  the  old 
in  politics,  philosophy,  and  religion.  This  happened  in  many 
cases,  and  to  those  who  did  not  seek  refuge  in  the  old,  what  re- 
sulted ?  A  political  apathy — soon  to  be  eating  the  very  heart  and 
core  out  of  the  "Bourgeois  Monarchy."  It  was  to  be,  then,  the 
reign  of  selfish  interests,  a  time  when  men's  minds  were  taken  up 
with  their  own  personal  preoccupations.  By  day  men  laboured 
for  themselves  alone,  and  when  the  day  was  over  and  they  re- 
turned to  their  comfortable  homes  it  was  only  natural  that 
their  minds  should  turn  to  the  old  and  better  times.  Not  to 
the  time  of  the  Bourbons  and  Louis  XVI,  that  was  too  remote 
after  the  centuries  of  progress  they  had  traversed  in  so  brief  a 
space  of  years ;  nor  yet  to  Charles  X  and  the  "Congregation," 
that  was  too  recent  an  experience,  but  rather  to  Napoleon  and 
his  glories  now  more  vivid  and  real  because  of  the  recent 
national  funeral  offered  by  Louis  Philippe  to  him.  It  was 
then  to  Napoleon  and  his  conquests  that  the  bourgeois  turned, 
he  had  forgotten  the  horrors  of  the  glorious  years  of  the  First 
Empire.  With  the  workers  it  was  different.  They  com- 
menced to  read  their  paper — the  Journal  du  Peuple — written 
by  Louis  Blanc  and  Ledru  Rollin  and  containing  a  veritable 
hodge-podge  of  Utopian  schemes  in  which  Individualism,  Com- 
munism, the  Socialism  of  the  National  Workshops,  the  Relig- 
ion of  Reason  and  Anarchism  were  mingled  inextricably.  Such 
was  their  daily  mental  food.  The  middle-class,  in  turn,  had 
found  its  solace  in  Republicanism,  really  the  Socialism  of  the 
"petit  commergant."   Their  paper  was  the  National,  edited  by 

2  v.  L.  Blanc,  "Organisation  du  Travail." 

104 


the  gallant  young  Arago,  Carnot  and  Gamier  Pages,  men  who, 
at  least  showed  their  good  sense  in  that  they  advised  their 
readers  to  bide  their  time. 

With  such  a  state  of  affairs  all  over  the  country  it  is  indeed 
surprising  that  one  man  coming  to  power  at  that  time  was  able 
to  conceal  this  condition  from  the  eyes  of  many  of  his  con- 
temporaries. Yet  this  was  the  task  Guizot  accomplished,  and 
though  his  methods  were  not  of  the  most  estimable,  still  he 
well  merits  the  praise  bestowed  on  him  for  having  kept  Louis 
Philippe  on  the  throne  eight  years  more.  He  was  indeed  a  past- 
master  at  this  kind  of  game. 

Guizot,  himself,  speaking  of  this  period  has  said :  "Before 
entering  on  public  life  I  witnessed  the  Revolution  and  the 
Empire;  I  saw  as  clearly  as  day  their  faults  and  disasters 
spring  from  their  alternating  prepossessions  of  mind  and  force; 
the  Revolution  gave  itself  up  to  a  flood  of  innovations ;  the 
Empire  to  a  torrent  of  conquests ;  warnings  were  not  wanting 
to  each  system;  for  both,  sound  policy  was  no  secret  tardily 
disclosed ;  it  was  repeatedly  indicated  to  them  by  the  events  and 
sages  of  the  time.  They  rejected  it  at  all  hands;  the  Revolu- 
tion lived  under  the  yoke  of  popular  passions,  the  Emperor 
under  the  bondage  of  his  own.  This  cost  the  Revolution  the 
liberties  it  had  proclaimed,  the  Empire  the  conquests  it  had 
achieved,  and  France  immense  afflictions  and  sacrifices.  I 
carried  into  public  life  the  constant  remembrance  of  these  two 
examples  and  a  resolution  instinctive  rather  than  premeditated, 
to  search  out  all  occasions  for  sound  policy,  conformable  to  the 
interests  and  rights  of  the  country,  and  to  bow  beneath  no  other 
control.  He  who  does  not  maintain,  in  judgment  and  conduct, 
sufficient  independence  to  see  things  as  they  truly  are,  and  what 
they  counsel  and  command  irrespective  of  the  prejudices  and 
passions  of  men,  is  neither  worthy  nor  capable  of  governing. 
The  representative  system,  it  is  true,  renders  this  independence 
of  mind  and  action  more  difficult  to  governing  power,  for  it 
has  precisely  the  object  of  assuring  to  the  governed,  to  their 
ideals  and  sentiments  as  well  as  to  their  interests  a  large  share 
of  influence  in  the  conduct  of  affairs,  but  the  difficulty  does  not 
do  away  with  the  necessity ;  and  the  institutions  which  procure 
the  intervention  of  the  country  in  affairs  would  guarantee  but 


105 


little  good  management,  if  they  reduced  the  ministers  to  docile 
agents  of  popular  ideas  and  wishes."3 

From  this  statement  of  the  former  professor  of  history,  it 
may  be  seen  very  clearly  how  simple  a  matter  it  would  be  for 
him  to  revert,  if  it  would  really  be  a  reversion,  consciously 
or  unconsciously,  to  old  doctrines.  For  after  all  it  was  nothing 
less  than  the  restatement  of  these  same  principles  couched  in 
more  modern  language.  When  the  time  came,  therefore,  Met- 
ternich  knew  he  would  not  have  much  trouble  with  Guizot,  now 
that  Thiers  was  practically  silenced,  though  at  this  time  he  was 
still  a  member  of  the  Cabinet.  Any  move  of  Metternich's  at 
this  juncture,  however,  would  have  been  inadvisable  for,  the 
relations  between  England  and  France  were  for  the  moment  of 
too  intimate  a  nature.  Guizot  himself  seemed  anxious  to  re- 
establish the  entente  cordiale  and  with  Thiers  muffled,  this 
became  a  comparatively  simple  matter,  after  Guizot's  party  had 
temporarily  allied  itself  with  the  Left.  Hardly  had  this  been 
accomplished,  however,  when  the  country  was  confronted  with 
a  very  serious  problem,  that  of  the  succession.  On  the  13th  of 
July,  1843,  tne  due  d'Orleans  was  killed  in  an  accident.  France 
was  thrown  into  despair,  for  such  a  contingency  had  never  been 
foreseen  or  even  considered.  People  turned  in  hope  to  the  Char- 
ter, but  they  found  there  no  provision  for  the  succession.4  It 
was  decided  that  the  regency  should  be  entrusted  to  the  due 
de  Nemours  in  the  event  of  Louis  Philippe's  death. 

The  English  entente  settled,  the  problem  of  the  regency  sat- 
isfactorily resolved,  and  the  last  trials  attending  the  Boulogne 
Fiasco  of  Louis  Xapoleon  finished,  the  field  of  political  con- 
troversy seemed  fairly  clear.  It  was  then  that  the  question 
of  secondary  instruction  as  promised  by  the  Charter  in  Article 
Sixty-Nine  presented  itself.  Guizot  may  have  congratulated 
himself  at  the  time  that  apparently  so  trivial  a  matter  was  to 

3  Guizot,  "Memoirs,"  VII,  3. 

*  de  Broglie  said  :  "Everyone  in  thought,  calculated  the  number  of 
years  which  henceforward  divide  the  heir  to  the  throne  from  the  age 
when  he  will  be  able  to  grasp  with  a  firm  hand  the  sceptre  of  his 
grandsire,  the  sword  of  his  father;  everyone  asked  himself  what 
would  happen  in  the  interval,  if  the  days  of  the  king  were  not  meas- 
ured by  the  wishes  of  his  people  and  the  wants  of  the  State ;  every- 
one interrogated  the  Charter  and  regretted  its  silence."  Guizot,  "France 
under  Louis  Philippe,"  21. 

106 


demand  the  attention  of  the  chambers,  but  later  he  certainly  had 
occasion  to  regret  his  earlier  self-felicitations.  During  the  pre- 
ceding ministry  (March  i-October  29,  1840),  the  Neo-Catholics 
had  remained  quiet  but  they  had  by  no  means  been  inactive. 
They  felt  their  opportunity  was  approaching  and  they  but 
gained  more  strength  and  influence  in  waiting.  In  July  of  that 
year  Ozanam  had  written  : 

"It  is  apparent  that  the  movement  which  has  been  carried  on 
under  different  forms,  from  time  to  time  feeble  or  violent, 
pusillanimous  or  indiscreet,  philosophical  and  literary,  the 
movement  which  has  animated  the  "Correspondent,"  the 
"Revue  Europenne,"  "l'Avenir,"  "FUniversite,"  "les  Annales 
de  la  Philosophic  Chretienne,"  the  "Conferences  de  Notre 
Dame,"  the  Benedictines  of  Solesmes,  the  Dominicans  follow- 
ing the  abbe  Lacordaire,  and  even  the  small  "societe  Saint  Vin- 
cent de  Paul,"  all  of  them  facts  very  unequal  in  importance 
and  merit,  it  is  evident,  I  say,  that  this  movement,  the  character 
of  which  has  been  altered  and  adopted  to  suit  the  circumstances, 
is  beginning  to  carry  with  it  the  destinies  of  the  country.  At 
first  justified  by  the  proselytising  which  resulted  among  un- 
believers, by  the  strengthening  of  faith  in  many  souls  who, 
without  its  aid  perhaps,  would  have  lost  their  faith,  and  forti- 
fied by  the  constant  adherence  of  some  of  the  most  distin- 
guished men  in  the  priesthood,  behold  it  now  encouraged  by 
the  patronage  of  the  new  episcopacy,  and  the  triple  nomination 
of  Affre,  Gousset  and  de  Bonald  to  the  three  principal  episcopal 
thrones  in  France,  raises  necessarily  the  long  quarantine  that 
our  ideas,  a  little  suspected  perhaps,  have  had  to  undergo."5 

But  this  good  fortune,  the  nomination  of  the  three  priests, 
was  emphasized  by  other  developments  following  closely  upon 
the  appointment  of  the  "Neo-Catholic"  sympathizers.  The  one 
was  the  appearance  in  the  pulpit  of  the  Notre  Dame  of  Lacor- 
daire wearing  the  Dominican  habit,  while  the  other  develop- 
ment was  the  outcome  of  the  appointment  of  Afire  as 
Archbishop  of  Paris ;  cordial  relations  sprang  up  between  the 
Tuileries  and  the  Episcopal  Palace.6    Certainly  the  fortunes  of 

5  Ozanam,  12  Juillet  1840. 

6  A  propos  of  Lacordaire's  appearance  in  Xotre  Dame  wearing  the 
Dominican  habit,  one  authority  remarks :  "Apres  cela  n'etait-il  pas 
fonde  a  dire  en  montrant  sa  robe  Je  suis  une  liberte?"  Thureau-Dan- 
gin,  Mon.  Juillet  V,  462. 

107 


the  church  had  changed  from  those  early  days,  ten  years  before, 
when  the  clergy,  suffering  from  "mort  civile"  feared  to  show 
themselves  on  the  street.  The  time  seemed  ripe  to  demand 
their  promised  liberties;  the  "Neo-Catholics"  no  longer  hesi- 
tated. Consequently  in  May  of  that  same  year  (1840)  ap- 
peared a  pamphlet  entitled  "le  Monopole  Universitaire  devoile 
a  la  France  liberate  et  a  la  France  catholique  par  une  societe 
d  ecclesiastiques,  sous  la  presidence  de  Y  abbe  Rohrbacher." 
This  work  contained  a  criticism  of  the  teachings  of  the  Univer- 
sity, citing  examples  of  the  coures  given  by  Cousin,  Jouffroy, 
Ouinet,  Michelet,  Libri  and  Mickiewicz.7  It  made  three 
charges:  that  the  present  system  of  instruction  tended  to  de- 
catholicize  France,8  that  the  Eclecticism  of  Cousin  was  a  danger- 
ous philosophy  leading  inevitably  to  pantheism  or  deism ;  and 
that  it  was  the  duty  of  parents  to  instruct  and  protect  their 
children's  souls,  and  not  a  duty  of  the  state.  Such  in  brief 
was  the  content  of  this  pamphlet,  the  indirect  influence  of 
which  was  to  be  more  far  reaching  perhaps  than  had  been  the 
intention  of  its  unknown  author. 

What,  then,  was  the  "Monopole  Universitaire?"  In  short, 
by  the  Code  that  Napoleon  had  introduced  regulating  education 
in  France,  all  schools  and  universities  were  under  the  direct 
control  of  the  council  of  the  University  at  Paris,  and  all  private 
schools  must  receive  the  sanction  of  the  University  for  their 
existence ;  their  professors  must  have  passed  the  examinations 
required  by  the  University,  and  in  addition  these  private 
schools  must  pay  what  was  called  a  "tribut  d'allegeance"  or 
"retribution  Universitaire."  Furthermore  unless  it  was  proven 
that  a  student  had  received  his  education  either  at  the  public 
schools  or  at  one  of  these  favoured  private  institutions,  he 
could  not  be  admitted  to  receive  his  "baccalaureat."  Thus  the 
University  of  Paris  was  enabled  to  exercise  a  real  monop- 
oly over  all  education  in  France,  be  it  secondary  or  su- 

7  It  is  difficult  to  establish  the  authorship  of  this  pamphlet.  De- 
bidour  (l'Eglise  et  l'Etat  444-5)  says:  "Cet  ouvrage  inspire  par  les 
Jesuites  de  Nancy,  avait  ete  redige  par  un  pretre  de  cette  ville  nomme 
Jacot,  et  l'auteur  est  d'autant  moins  excusable  qu'il  appartenait  lui- 
meme  a  l'Universite  comme  aumonier." 

8  v.  "Le  Monopole  Universitaire  devoile." 


108 


perior.9  The  sole  exception  to  this  rule  was  the  case  of  the 
small  seminaries  that,  under  the  Restoration,  had  been  placed 
under  the  direct  supervision  of  the  bishops.  But  this  exception 
was  only  a  favour  and  might  be  withdrawn  at  any  time. 

The  opponents  of  this  system  based  their  protest  on  Article 
sixty-nine,  heading  eight  of  the  Charter — which  read : 

"The  following  subjects  shall  be  provided  for  successively 
by  separate  laws  within  the  shortest  possible  space  of  time;10 
.  .  .  8th,  Public  instruction  and  the  liberty  of  teaching." 

The  question  of  instruction  was  indeed  a  debt  against  the 
Orleanists  which  must  be  cancelled,  but  how?  That  was  the 
difficult  question  confronting  Louis  Philippe  and  his  ministers.11 

It  was  not  until  1841,  however,  that  the  "Neo-Catholics" 
assumed  a  hostile  attitude  to  the  "Monopole  Universitaire." 
In  the  meantime,  the  leaders  were  trying  to  persuade  M.  Cou- 
sin and  later  M.  Villemain,  his  successor,  to  listen  to  their  pro- 
tests. With  Villemain,  in  particular,  this  was  difficult  to  do. 
But  the  younger  leaders  and  some  of  their  older  ecclesiastical 
superiors  persisted  in  their  efforts,  for  they  felt  that  an  amica- 
ble solution  was  the  most  desirable  and,  furthermore,  they 
believed  that  certain  members  of  the  government  were  at  the 
time  kindly  disposed  to  them.  Moreover,  in  this  their  hopes 
do  not  seem  to  have  been  founded  on  mere  hearsay.  On  the 
first  of  January,  1841,  Louis  Philippe  had  said  to  Mgr.  Afire: 

"The  more  difficult  the  task  of  my  government  becomes,  the 
more  need  it  has  of  the  assistance  and  co-operation  of  all 
those  who  desire  the  maintenance  of  order  and  the  reign  of  the 
laws  ...  It  is  this  moral  assistance  and  support  of  all  good 
people  that  will  give  to  my  government  the  force  necessary  to 
accomplish  the  duties  it  has  been  called  upon  to  fulfill.  And 
I  place  among  the  first  and  foremost  of  these  the  duty  of  aid- 
ing in  the  advancement  and  furthering  of  religion,  of  combat- 
ing immorality  and  of  showing  to  the  world,  no  matter  what 
the  detractors  of  France  have  said  to  the  contrary,  that  the 

9  The  significance  of  these  terms  is  about  as  follows : 

Primary — primary  grade. 

Secondary — high  school  and  part  college  grade. 
Superior — university  or   graduate   school  grade. 

10  "Article  69,  Charter  1830,"  Anderson  Const.  Docs.  No.  105. 

u  "Hist,  de  Louis  Philippe  et  d'Orleanism,"  430  et  seq.  J.  Cretineau- 
Joly. 


109 


respect  of  religion,  morality  and  virtue  is  still  the  ruling  senti- 
ment among  the  majority  of  us."12 

There  was,  moreover,  still  another  fact  that  predisposed  the 
government  and  many  of  the  people  as  well,  to  regard  the 
prospect  of  a  struggle  over  the  liberty  of  instruction  as  a 
happy  occasion  whereby  public  opinion  might  be  diverted  from 
the  contemplation  of  a  more  serious  evil.  Socialism  had 
become  more  of  a  menace.  Its  ideas  were  embodied  in  the 
theory  of  Communism. 

One  contemporary  wrote  at  this  time :  14 

"The  day  is  not  far  distant  when  all  this  bourgeois  comedy  in 
France,  along  with  its  heroes  and  comrades  of  the  parliamen- 
tary stage,  will  experience  a  terrible  end  amid  hisses  and  scorn- 
ful cries,  and  following  this  comedy  they  will  present  an  epi- 
logue entitled  "The  Reign  of  the  Commune." 

It  was  to  avoid  this  "Epilogue"  that  the  government  sought 
a  distraction.  The  first  strike  at  Lyons,  the  great  revolt  of 
1836,  the  April  Days,  the  Journal  da  Peuple  and  the  Labour 
programme  of  Louis  Blanc,  then,  had  not  been  in  vain.  The 
Industrial  revolution  continued,  casting  aside  manual  labour, 
sowing  famine  and  discontent  everywhere.  It  made  its  slow 
and  inevitable  progress  along  the  poor  streets  of  manufacturing 
towns,  tearing  men  from  the  earning  of  their  daily  bread,  and 
making  no  provision  for  their  future  needs.  Machinery  taught 
men  far  more  than  the  wild  and  imaginative  preachings  of 
Louis  Blanc  and  Ledru  Rollin,  the  principles  of  socialism,15 
Proudhon  had  cried:  "la  propriete,  c'est  le  vol."  It  is  no 
wonder  that  the  government  trembled.    In  opposition  to  this 

u  Moniteur,  2  Janv.  1841.  In  Guizot,  too,  they  found  an  ally;  he 
said :  "Wherever  the  principle  of  liberty  of  instruction  is  admitted, 
it  ought  to  be  loyally  exercised,  without  any  attempt  or  subterfuge  to 
give  and  withhold  at  the  same  time.  In  an  epoch  of  publicity  and  dis- 
cussion, nothing  injures  governments  more  than  deceitful  promises 
and  false  words."13 

(Strange  words  these,  when  one  considers  the  Cabinet's  subsequent 
policy  in  regard  to  the  question  Guizot  was  discussing!) 

"Guizot:    "France  under  Louis  Philippe,"  1841-1847,  348. 

14  H.  Heine,  Lutiee,  209. 

15  "Subversive  doctrines  have  taken  hold  of  the  lower  classes  of 
France.  They  demand  now  not  only  equality  before  the  law  but  also 
equality  in  the  right  to  enjoy  all  the  fruits  of  this  earth."    H.  Heine, 

Lutiee,  210. 

no 


vast  wave  of  revolt  spreading  over  France,  what  had  the  gov- 
ernment to  offer  but  the  teachings  of  the  old  school  of  econom- 
ics with  its  time-worn  adage  of  "laisser-faire?"  This  was  of  no 
assistance.  Guizot  and  his  satellites  were  fully  aware  of  its 
utter  uselessness,  and,  following  the  example  of  one  of  then- 
predecessors,  they  sought  a  distraction  for  the  country  in  the 
vain  hope  that,  in  addition  to  serving  the  purpose  of  a  blind,  the 
government  might  also  find  in  it  a  useful  and  helpful  ally.  The 
question  of  the  liberty  of  instruction  was  therefore  allowed  to 
come  before  the  legislature. 

Unfortunately,  the  first  advances  of  the  government  were 
awkward.  In  1841  Villemain  proposed  his  law  on  public 
instruction  and  at  the  very  outset  the  author  made  a  statement 
sufficient  in  itself  to  turn  the  sympathies  of  the  "Neo-Catholics" 
from  the  bill : 

"Liberty  of  instruction  might  have  been  admitted  in  principle, 
but  it  is  not  essential  (to  political  liberty)  and  the  very  nature 
of  political  liberty  has  frequently  been  marked  by  the  exclusive 
influence  and  absolute  control  of  the  state  in  the  education  of  its 
youth." 

In  such  a  fashion  the  new  law  proposed  to  recognize  the 
promise  of  liberty  of  teaching  made  in  the  Charter !  Its  other 
provisions  were  in  accord  with  its  preamble;  private  institu- 
tions were  to  be  submitted  to  certain  requirements  of  Univer- 
sity training,  and  state  certificates  of  ability  which  the  "Neo- 
Catholics"  could  not  accept.  Furthermore,  while  the  small 
seminaries  were  no  longer  restricted  in  the  matter  of  the  num- 
ber of  candidates,  they  were  at  the  same  time  placed  under  the 
direct  supervision  of  the  State.16  After  a  brief  discussion  the 
law  was  withdrawn.  Nearly  everyone  recognized  it  as  a  veiled 
deception  offered  to  the  "Neo-Catholics."17  Was  Guizot  re- 
sponsible? This  seems  doubtful  for  he  was  minister  of  foreign 
affairs,  and  was  at  this  time  much  engrossed  in  the  rehabilita- 
tion of  the  English  entente.  It  was  probably  the  work  of  Ville- 
main alone,  based  to  a  certain  extent  on  an  unfinished  project 
prepared  by  his  predecessor,  Cousin. 

The  results  of  the  law  were  unfortunate  for  the  government 
and  for  the  ministry  as  well.   Almost  at  the  beginning  of  their 

19Debidour,  E  et  E.  447. 

"Thureau-  Dangin  Mon.  Juillet,  V.  465. 

in 


"rapprochement''  with  this  new  Catholic  party,  the  government 

had  played  false  with  them — the  result  was  to  be  an  active 

campaign  and  a  feeling  of  hostility  that  became  more  evident 

as  the  new  group  approached  their  goal.   The  "Neo-Catholics" 

now  felt  themselves  fully  justified  in  taking  a  more  definite 

stand  and  in  commencing  the  struggle  in  real  earnest.   The  idea 

of  a  "parti  catholique"  was  nascent.    This  time,  however,  the 

v  Lacor-    former  disciples  of  La  Mennais  would  be  more  careful.  Prof- 
claire  a      .  .  . 

Monta-  iting  by  their  earlier  experiences  they  wisely  made  three  reso- 
30™Sept'  mti°ns  >  tnat  their  propaganda  must  not  include  a  great  number 
1844  '  of  subjects  but  one  alone,  the  liberty  of  instruction;  that  they 
must  not  seek  to  destroy  but  rather  to  reform;  and  that  they 
must  have  the  support  of  a  certain  number  of  the  higher  clergy. 
"Sangfn  "     ^'1S  ^ast  stipulation  was,  without  a  doubt,  the  most  significant 

E  et  E,  142  for  them,  and  the  very  nature  of  Villemain's  law  made  it  possi- 
ble. For,  alarmed  by  the  attack  made  on  their  own  powers  in 
the  clause  regarding  the  small  seminaries,  the  bishops  prepared 

Afire  M"Otn  t0  j°*n  *n  t^ie  demands  of  the  growing  party  of  "Neo-Catholics." 
servations"   Forty-nine  or  fifty-six  of  them  are  said  to  have  protested. 

Their  first  method  of  attack  took  the  form  of  recriminations 
against  the  University,  of  vague  charges  of  immorality  rather 
than  definite  accusations  against  the  professors  and  criticisms  of 
their  philosophical  teachings.18  In  many  cases  these  attacks 
went  too  far  and  the  over-zealous  action  of  the  pamphleteers 
tended  rather  to  hinder  than  assist  their  cause.  But  there  were 
others  among  the  "Neo-Catholics"  who  knew  the  weakest 
point  in  their  adversaries'  armour,  and  in  directing  their 
energies  to  this  single  point  they  not  only  gained  honour  for 
their  cause,  but  also  won  the  sympathies,  and  in  some  cases,  the 
help  of  those  who,  up  to  this  time,  had  been  mere  interested 
onlookers.  This  was  the  harm  Villemain's  law  did  to  his  own 
cause,  the  cause  of  the  University ;  it  laid  bare  the  philosophy 
of  Cousin,  the  head,  to  the  shafts  of  his  enemies ;  there  was  the 
University's  weakest  point. 

18  v.  p.  ex  Desgaretes  "Monopole  Universitaire."  Vedrine :  "Simple 
coup  d'oeil  sur  les  douleurs  et  les  esperances  de  l'Eglise  aux  prises  avec 
les  tyrans  des  consciences  et  des  vices  du  XIXe  siecle."  Debidour 
(Eglise  et  l'Etat  450)  even  accuses  some  of  the  pamphleteers  of  falsify- 
ing texts  quoted  from  Quinet,  Michelet,  Libri,  etc.,  but  we  have  failed  to 
find  a  corroboration  of  this  statement  elsewhere. 


112 


Victor  Cousin  is  one  of  the  most  pathetic  characters  of  the 
entire  period  of  the  July  Monarchy.    Brilliant  and  gifted  he 
was  hindered  by  a  manner  and  delivery  so  grotesque  as  almost 
to  detract  from  the  force  of  anything  he  said  or  did.  Con- 
scientious to  an  extreme,  upon  his  installation  as  head  of  the 
University  he  had  taken  far  too  seriously  his  duties  and  the 
importance  of  the  institution  he  represented.    The  University 
of  Paris  became  to  his  eyes  the  entire  world  of  science,  and 
therefore,  the  philosophy  of  the  University,  his  philosophy, 
Eclecticism  became  in  his  mind  the  philosophy,  almost  the 
religion,  of  the  world.    It  would  not  be  an  exaggeration  to  say 
that  what  he  considered  Catholicism  to  have  been  for  the  past 
centuries,  he  expected  Eclecticism  to  become  for  the  future. 
From  Hegel  he  borrowed  pantheism  and  from  Schelling  deism. 
All  truth  is  known,  but  it  is  found  scattered  in  a  thousand  dif- 
ferent systems  in  all  of  which  the  truth  is  mingled  with  the 
false.    It  is  only  necessary  to  discover  in  each  system  that  part 
conformable  to  the  truth  and  to  unite  the  parts  of  the  truth  thus 
found  in  order  to  establish  the  full  complement  of  truth.  The 
method  by  wmich  this   is   done  is  known  as  Eclecticism, 
and  during  the  years  1830  and  1840  it  was  the  philosophy 
of  the  greater  number  of  the  Universities.    To  the  claims 
made  by  the   Catholics   that   Eclecticism   was   opposed  to 
Christianity,  Cousin  replied  that  his  philosophy  and  the  Chris- 
tian faith  were  one  and  the  same.    But  the  results  as  seen  in 
the  University  did  not  tend  to  confirm  this  rather  surprising 
statement.    In  the  first  place,  the  actions  of  the  head  himself 
have  shown  that  his  own  views  were  uncertain  and  unstable, 
and  he  was  regarded  as  a  charlatan  by  some  of  his  contempor- 
aries;  he  frequently  changed  his  attitude  and  at  the  end  of  his 
life  practically  renounced  his  entire  system  of  philosophy. 
Certainly  his  thesis  that  Christianity  and  Eclecticism  were 
one,  did  not  seem  to  hold,  for  Christianity  lost  each  day  in  the 
alliance,  and  the  students  came  out  from  the  University  with  a 
very  vague  and  uncertain  idea  of  the  truths  of  the  faith.19 

19  "Quoi  qu'on  puisse  dire  pour  ou  contre,  en  louant  011  en  blamant,  on 
ne  sort  guere  Chretien  des  ecoles  de  l'Universite."  Sainte-Beuve 
"Chroniques  parisiennes,"  100  ets.  "J'ai  le  droit  de  signaler  tout  ce 
que  j'ai  trouve  dans  l'enseignement  donne  an  college  de  France,  comme 


v.  "U  Un ho- 
vers" 18 
Mars,  1843 


v.  Cousin, 
"du  Vrai  du 
Beau   et  du 
Bien" 


v.  Sainte- 
Beuve 


"Chroniques 
parisiennes/' 
I5I-IS2 

H.  Heine, 
"Franzo- 

sische 
Zustiide,"  I 

I,  260-261 


113 


v.  Comte  de 
Maistre 
Essai  sur 
le  principe 
genera- 
teur  des 
constitu- 
tions 
politiques 

v.  p.  ex. 
Quinet  VUn 
Mot  sur  la 
polemique 
religieuse," 
Rev.  des 

deux 
Mondes, 
15  Avril 
1842 


The  courses  of  Michelet,  Quinet,  Mickiewicz  and  Jouffroy 
were  such  as  to  warrant  this  assertion.  Furthermore, 
the  attitude  of  the  University  itself  to  its  opponents  is  not  con- 
vincing. Their  reply  took  the  form  of  recriminations  against 
the  morality  of  the  Catholics  and  their  institutions  of  learning, 
rather  than  a  critique  of  their  doctrines.  The  controversy  be- 
tween the  two  soon  became  a  question  of  politics  and  the 
University  was  upheld  by  the  opposition  in  the  "National ," 
"Courier  Francois."  "Constitutionnel"  and  "Journal  des  De 
bats"20  In  the  press  the  "Neo-Catholics''  found  little  sup- 
port. The  one  great  Catholic  paper  Ami  de  la  Religion  et  du 
Roi  regarding  them  as  the  mental  offspring  of  La  Mennais, 
rather  damned  them  by  its  silence,  and  the  Union  Catho- 
lique,  a  small  paper  was  the  only  one  to  support  them.  The 
new  Catholics  needed  an  official  organ ;  happily  they  did  not 
lack  one  for  long.  Early  in  the  year  1843  tne  Union  Catho- 
lique  combined  with  another  paper  VUnivers  and  under  the 
editorship  of  Louis  Veuillot  it  entered  the  field  of  controversy. 

The  paper,  VUnivers  had  existed  for  sometime,  having,  beea 
founded  shortly  after  1830  by  the  abbe  Migne,  but  it  was  not 
until  the  arrival  of  Louis  Veuillot  on  the  scene  that  it  became 
at  all  well  known.  The  resemblance  of  VUnivers  and 
VAvenir  of  the  earlier  school,  is  striking,  and  it  lies  not 
merely  in  the  fact  that  the  two  papers  were  the  mouthpieces  of 
the  Liberal  Roman  Catholics.  Their  similarity  is  still  more 
evident  in  the  characters  of  the  two  editors-in-chief ;  Louis 
Veuillot  employed  the  same  tactics  in  the  struggle  for  liberty 
that  La  Mennais  had  used.21  Louis  Veuillot  had  declared 
"Notre  role  est  le  combat  dans  la  patience  et  dans  la  chariti." 
But  there  was  too  much  of  La  Mennais  in  him  to  be  always 
patient  and  charitable,  and  it  will  be  seen  in  following  the 
course  events  took  during  the  "Neo  Catholic"  Movement  that 


etant  peu  conforme  a  la  morale  publique  et  a  nor  dogmes  religieux." 
Testimony  of  M.  de  L'Aspinasse  before  the  Chamber  of  Peers. 
Moniteur,  10  Juillet  1844,  Supp.  No.  192. 

20  Nearly  every  issue  of  these  papers  for  the  year  1842  contains 
articles  praising  the  University. 

ai"  Deja  sous  la  Restauration  Lamennais  avait  introduit  dans  la 
polemique  des  habitudes  de  violence  de  sarcasme  et  d'outrage.  M. 
Veuillot,  sous  ce  rapport,  fut  son  heritier  direct."  Thureau-Dangin : 
Mon.  Juillet  V,  437. 

114 


more  than  once  VUnivers  assumes  the  language  of  VAvenir 
in  discussing  the  University,  the  Church  and  the  government.22 
By  1843,  then,  the  "Neo-Catholics"  had  found  support  in  the 
press;  articles  now  began  to  appear  frequently  from  their 
pens — all  demanding  the  liberty  of  instruction.   This  same  year 
Montalembert  published  a  pamphlet  showing  clearly  the  posi- 
tion of  his  party  in  regard  to  the  government.   They  no  longer 
feared  it.   The  pamphlet  bore  the  title  "Devoir  des  Catholiques 
dans  la  question  de  la  liberte  de  rEnseignment''  and  basing  his 
argument  on  the  words  of  our  Blessed  Lord  "docentes  omnes 
gentes"  he  declared  "Teducation  est  une  partie  pratique  de  la 
religion  et  comme  un  droit  inherent  au  sacerdoce."  Moreover, 
by  citing  the  sinister  example  of  events  in  Belgium,  he  recalled 
to  his  readers'  minds  the  fact  that  it  was  the  "Neo-Catholics" 
and  Jesuits  in  that  country  who  had  brought  about  the  Revolu- 
tion of  August  1830.    He  then  proposed  the  formation  of  a 
"Neo-Catholic"  Party  to  protect  the  church's  rights.23  Aided 
by  the  bishops  he  formed  the  "Association  Catholique"  an 
ultramontane  society  whose  rule  was  to  be  absolute  submission 
to  the  wishes  of  the  Pope.   A  lay  committee  was  appointed  to 
work  out  a  plan  of  compaign  for  religious  freedom,  and  of 
this  committee  Montalembert2*  became  the  chairman.  Their 
programme  and  their  challenge  to  the  government  was  sent  far 
and  wide.    We  quote  from  the  paper  so  soon  to  be  joined  to 
"WniverJ': 

"If  again  you  were  only  compromising  your  own  existence,  it 


Monta- 
lembert : 
"Devoir  des 

Catho- 
liques dans 
la  question 
de  la  lib- 
erte de 
l'enseigne- 
ment" 


Deledom, 
"E  et  E,' 
455 


22  For  a  most  striking  example  of  this  resemblance:  "Cherchant 
reconcilier  les  besoins  de  catholicisme  avec  les  entrainements  les 
plus  legitimes  de  ce  siecle,  qui  est  le  notre  et  nous  acceptons,  nous  avons 
fait  retentir  d'une  voix  convaincue  un  cri  d'alliance  entre  l'Evangile  et 
la  charte  .  .  .  Dieu  et  la  liberte."  L'Univers,  2  Janvier  1845.  v.  also 
L'Univers,  7  Juin  1843. 

23  In  discussing  the  University,  however,  Montalembert  did  not  fail 
to  render  homage  to  the  lectures  of  F.  Ozanam  and  Lenormant.  v. 
"Devoir  des  Catholiques,  etc." 

24  About  the  same  time  there  appeared  in  the  Union  Catholique  the 
following  appeal  for  freedom:  "Les  Catholiques,  les  Protestants,  les 
Juifs  de  la  France  ont  done  ensemble  le  droit  d'obtenir  la  liberte 
promise  pour  l'enseignement.  Vous  ne  repoussez  pas  les  voeux  legitimes. 
Ainsi  vous  honorerez  votre  legislature,  et  vous  sauverez  en  raeme 
temps  la  France  des  malheurs  que  les  fausses  doctrines  preparent 
pour  les  peuples."    L'Union  Catholique,  12  Janvier  1843. 

115 


"L'Union 
Catho- 
lique, 
12  Janvier, 
1843" 


would  matter  but  little  to  us,  and  placed,  as  we  are  in  a  sphere 
superior  to  your  narrow  little  rivalries,  to  your  petty  triumphs 
and  to  your  miserable  defects,  we  might  well  consider  you  with 
all  the  sangfroid  with  which  the  Agamemmons  of  the  stage 
receive  their  catastrophes.  But  from  these  disorders  which 
you  foment  and  create  "Quiquid  delirant  reges  plectuntur 
Achivi."  If  you  are  the  kings  of  today  we  are  the  Archeans, 
and  we  pay  for  your  foolish  acts ;  that,  at  least,  gives  us  the 
right  to  complain.  And  then,  behind  us  and  with  us  is  France, 
the  France  which  you  are  disorganizing,  which  you  are  tortur- 
ing at  will,  which  has  need  of  peace,  order,  hierarchy,  regener- 
ation, and  to  whom  you  offer  only  the  spectacle  of  your  follies, 
the  fruits  of  your  errors,  the  heritage  of  your  discords ;  the 
France  for  whose  welfare  you  are  responsible  to  God  and  to 
Frenchmen,  the  France  that  endures  and  tolerates  you,  so  that 
you  may  not  fortify  yourselves  again  under  the  cover  of  the 
necessity  of  a  contested  existence  and  the  imperious  exigency 
of  saving  yourselves  at  all  costs."25 

This  passage  has  been  quoted  in  full  because  it  is  an  example 
of  the  very  earliest  propaganda  of  the  now  fully  organized 
"Xeo-Catholic''  Party,  its  language  is  sufficient  evidence  of  the 
strength  to  which  they  had  attained  in  so  short  a  time.  On  the 
first  of  February,  1843,  then,  the  two  papers  combined.  Their 
first  editorial  is  strikingly  similar  to  La  Mennais'  first  editorial 
in  VAvenir : 

"Catholics  avant  tout,  united  as  brothers,  we  bring  to  the 
common  cause  of  the  Church  and  the  country,  the  sincere  efforts 
of  our  zeal.  Above  all  the  petty  occupations  of  time  and  mat- 
ter, to  which  they  seem  to  have  relegated  the  world  of  political 
science,  where  interests  and  opinions  are  being  agitated  which 


25  Again,  on  the  anniverary  of  the  death  of  Louis  XVI  the  same 
paper  wrote :  "Xon !  Xon !  la  revolution  ne  s'est  pas  arretee.  Com- 
mencee  il  y  a  trois  siecles  sur  la  place  de  Wittenberg,  continuee  a  White 
Hall  et  sur  la  place  Louis  XV,  reprise  a  l'Hotel  de  Ville,  elle  ne 
cessera  que  par  un  repentir  sincere,  par  une  profonde  et  lente  ex- 
piation, elle  ne  cessera  que  par  un  retour  aux  verites  et  aux  principes 
dont  elle  est  la  negation  vivante".  L'Union  Catholique"  21  Janvier 
1843. 

For  the  view  of  a  neighbouring  country  v.  quotation  from  an 
editorial  in  Morning  Post,  quoted  in  L'Union  Catholique,  28  Jan- 
vier 1843. 

116 


tend  too  often  to  divide  men,  the  faith  has  appeared  as  a  peace- 
ful and  regenerating  power.  Sovereign  and  divine  truth  can- 
not refuse  to  exercise  the  right  to  rule  the  people ;  its  influence, 
recognized  and  accepted,  alone  can  place  public  prosperity  on  a 
solid  basis.   Such  has  been  and  such  always  will  be  our  belief. 

"Furthermore  a  movement  is  undeniably  at  work  deep  down 
in  the  conscience  of  all  Frenchmen,  in  favor  of  Catholicism ;  to 
refuse  to  recognize  it  would  be  a  strange  act  of  blindness.   It  is 
to  second  this  work,  to  develop  the  action  and  influences  of  the  \^tvrier 
Catholic  spirit  in  the  heart  of  this  country,  that  we  consecrate  1843 
all  our  efforts. " 

The  newspaper  was  received,  of  course,  with  some  hostility, 
but  most  of  its  contemporaries  ignored,  for  the  time,  its  exist-  dienne*]:" 
ence.   This  reception,  however,  did  not  calm  its  zeal.   The  first    1  Fev.,  1843 
question  asked  of  it  was  an  explanation  of  its  political  views. 
Their  reply  was  concise  and  neat : 

"Religion  is  self-sufficient;  it  has  no  more  need  of  politics 
than  God  has  of  man;  but  man  could  not  do  without  God,  nor    ^  , 
can  politics  live  without  a  fundamental  basis  and  a  superior  5  p^y.  jg'43 
principle.    Religion  alone  is  this  principle  and  furnishes  this 
basis,  and  religion  is,  therefore,  the  only,  the  most  important, 
and  the  most  telling  of  a1l  political  things." 

Despite  the  rather  bold  language  of  the  early  numbers  of 

rUnivers  in  regard  to  religion  and  to  politics  it  had  been  v: ■  YUnivers, 

1.1         •  x   1    1  1  Xos.  20  et 

very  cautious,  and  wisely  so,  m  one  respect,    it  had  been  com-  25,  Fevrier 

mon  gossip  that  Louis  Veuillot  had  been  placed  at  the  head  of  7_IOjg^ars' 
the  paper  principally  to  combat  the  "Monopole  Universitaire" 
and  yet  so  far  reference  had  only  been  made  to  it  in  a  vague 
and  general  way,  attacking  its  morality.   Questions  again  were 
asked,  but  the  editors  were  patiently  awaiting  a  good  oppor- 
tunity to  strike.    It  was  in  March  of  that  year  that  the  occa-  YUniyers, 
sion  appeared.  Villemain  presented  a  law  requiring  the  students  6  Avril,  1843 
of  the  "£cole   Polytechnique"  to  take  the  "baccalaureat" 
examinations  stipulated  for  all  schools.  A  great  howl  of  protest 
arose ;  de  Carne  supported  by  such  men  of  the  Left  as  Barrot, 
de  Tocqueville  and  Billaudel  protested  against  the  plan  and 
UUnivers  supported  them  in  condemning  what  it  called  the 
insatiable  greed  of  the  "Universitaires''  for  power.   It  was  then 
that  Louis  Veuillot  launched  forth  his  dictum  showing  clearly 


117 


the  stand  the  paper  would  take  in  the  matter  of  public  instruc- 
tion. 

'The  charter  has  declared  the  principle  of  liberty  of  instruc- 
tion; petitions,  come  from  all  corners  of  France,  demand  this 
promise  of  the  Constitution,  and  the  rights  inscribed  in  the 
justice  and  nature  of  things  as  in  the  Constitution.  The  power 
of  the  father,  the  sacred  prerogatives  of  the  family,  the  most 
inviolable  titles  of  the  citizen  combine  to  reclaim  this  liberty. 
The  powers  (the  government)  reply  with  a  panegyric  on  the 
"Monopole" ;  they  defend  the  "Monopole,"  they  expatiate  upon 
'^1843™'  its  pretended  benefits ;  they  hope  to  provoke  its  necessity.  We 
13  Mars  seriously  call  the  attention  of  all  Catholics  and  of  all  honest 
people  to  this  affair.  It  is  of  prime  necessity  for  the  interest, 
honour  and  future  welfare  of  the  country ;  it  is  well  worth  a 
portefolio  quarrel  (Cabinet  quarrel).  It  is  not  a  question  of 
who  are  the  ministers,  but  of  what  they  are  doing.  Betray  the 
charter,  deceive  the  hopes  of  religion,  violate  the  principles  of 
the  most  simple  and  most  evident  equity,  that  is  a  thing  that  no 
man  may  do,  even  if  he  have  the  majority  of  the  two  chambers 
to  support  him."26 

What  was  the  attitude  of  the  University  to  these  protests? 
Heretofore  they  had  attempted  to  reply  by  proving  that  their 
philosophy  was  not  opposed  to  Christianity.  This,  as  has  been 
seen,  they  failed  to  accomplish  successfully.  Then,  theyf  in- 
stituted a  policy  of  recrimination.    This,  in  turn,  failed. 

Now,  in  a  last  desperate  attempt  they  inaugurated  the  scheme 
of  attacking  the  Jesuits  with  the  hope  that  they  might  in  this 
day  avert  the  flood  of  charges  now  being  turned  against  the 
University  by  the  "Neo-Catholics"  and  win  more  adherents  to 

*8  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  this  opinion  was  not  held  by  "L'Uni- 
vers"  alone.  One  journal  criticises  the  Monopole  as  follows:  "L'Uni- 
versite  est  l'oeuvre  de  despotisme  imperial.  Le  conquerant  legislateur 
qui  avait  soumis  45  millions  d'hommes  a  sa  seule  volonte,  avait  besoin 
que  Ton  crut  en  lui  a  sa  mission  a  sa  suprematie,  a  son  infaillibilite ; 
il  unit  l'enseignement  a  son  profit  personnel  par  un  simple  decret,  comme 
s'il  fut  agi  d'une  levee  des  consents."  It  then  asks  what  need  has 
France  of  this  system  today.  National,  18  Avril  1843.  Another  paper 
of  different  opinions  writes :  "M.  le  Ministre  de  l'instruction  publique 
vient  de  rediger  un  rapport  claire,  parfaitment  ecrit,  sagement  pense 
.  .  .  les  journaux  hostiles  a  l'Universite  declarent  que  M.  le  Ministre 
de  l'instruction  publique  a  menti,"  Constitutioncl,  18  Mars.  1843. 


118 


its  side.   In  so  doing,  however,  the  Universitaires  only  betrayed 

the  symptoms  of  their  own  internal  weakness.    All  were  not 

blind  to  this,  and  one  paper,  not  of  "Neo-Catholic"  sympathies,  Le  National, 

.    ,                     '  18  Avnl, 

remarked :  jg43 

"What  ought  the  University  to  fear  when  it  has  the  favour 

and  support  of  the  government,  the  subsidies  of  the  budget,  the 

co-operation  and  affiliation  of  the  academies  who  count  among 

their  numbers  the  greatest  philosophers,  the  most  illustrious 

scholars  and  the  most  celebrated  savants?    It  must  have  very  v-  Constitu- 

,                r-  i                               1  r                   1-     1        r    •  1      •       •                           •      •  tlOHHel,  5 

little  confidence  m  itself,  very  little  faith  m  its  own  mission,  jg43 
to  see  in  a  few  rival  schools  set  up  beside  those  of  the  Univer- 
sity, its  own  destruction." 

The  first  evidence  of  the  "aux  Jesuites"  agitation  inaugurated  ^ou^n^t  deiS 

by  the  "Universitaires"  is  found  in  the  press.    Some  of  the  2-6  Mai 

newspapers  of  the  day  and  even  the  Court  journals,  seemed  to  ^43 
have  the  impression  that  the  "Neo-Catholic"  party  was  a 

Legitimate  clique.   In  fact,  about  this  same  time  a  rumour  was  £onstitu 

circulated  at  the  Tuileries  to  the  effect  that  the  Jesuits  were  tionnel 

instigating  a  reaction  against  the  King.    Pamphlets  appeared  18  ^**s' 

written  for  the  most  part  by  the  "Universitaires,"  confirming  p0ntlevoy, 

the  rumour  and,  profiting  by  the  already  unsavoury  reputation  ^e  de  Pre 

of  that  order  in  past  times  the  authors  allowed  their  imagina-  11^62' 

tion  free  rein  in  depicting  in  vivid  colours  the  future  evilsFrance  v-  P-  ex- 

would  suffer  under  the  order.    Even  Villemain,  in  a  discourse  j&uites  et 

pronounced  shortly  before  this  time  is  said  to  have  declared  l'Universite 

that  the  country  needed  a  controversialist  to  fight  against  a-t-iin  encore 

"cette  societe  remuante  et  imperieuse  que  l'esprit  de  gouverne-  r  des 
ment  et  l'esprit  de  liberte  repoussent  egalement."   Apropos  to 

this  agitation  appeared  the  disgusting  romance  by  Eugene  Sue  Quoted 

"le  Juif  Errant" — nothing  less  than  a  libel  on  the  Jesuits  ;  while  Thureau 

Michelet  in  the  columns  of  the  "Constitutionnel"  condemned  Mon^/uiliet 

the  order  in  Essays  entitled:  "Le  Pretre,"  "La  Femme"  and  V,  502 
"La  Famille."27    The  methods  of  the  Universitaires,  however, 

were  despicable,  and  many  of  their  contemporaries  began  to  de  pontle- 

speak  of  them  as  "turn  coat  liberals,"  and  to  acknowledge  v^y,  ^'Vk  du 

vignan,"  289 

^Another  work  more  reasonable  and  less  fanatical  on  this  subject  289 

was  "les  Jesuites"  (1843)  by  Michelet  and  Quinet.    In  this  the  authors  ,  ^ 

de  1  ocoue- 

attempt  to  demonstrate  that  the  system  of  the  Jesuits  requiring  abso-  vj|je  "Corr- 

lute  obedience  may  destroy  and  atrophy  all  reason,  will,  patriotism  and  esp.  ined," 

even  civilization.  6  Decembre, 


119 


1843 


v.  de  Ravig- 

nan  "de 
l'Existence 
des 
Jesuites" 


v.  Constitu- 
tionnel, 
Nos.  18 

Mars,  5  Mai, 

1843; 
also  Nation- 
al, 10  Fev- 
rier,  1844 


that  the  government  papers  were  perhaps  even  worse  than  those 
of  the  opposition  in  this  one  respect.  At  the  beginning  of  the 
next  year,  de  Ravignan  now  provincial  of  the  Jesuit  order  in 
France,  issued  a  very  noble  and  fairminded  defense  which 
made  a  favourable  impression.  In  this  apology  the  author 
showed  how  the  Jesuits  had  more  than  once  saved  the  country 
from  serious  uprisings,  and  recounted  some  of  the  many  noble 
acts  performed  by  individual  members  of  the  Society  during 
the  Terror.  Moreover  the  Society  was  not  without  support 
outside  their  own  body,  and  there  were  many  who  came  to 
the  side  of  de  Ravignan  to  defend  and  protect  the  order.  It 
was  among  the  "Neo-Catholics"  particularly  that  they  found  the 
greatest  sympathy.  At  the  very  outset,  when  the  attacks  had 
first  appeared  in  the  Constitutionnel,  under  the  title  of  "The 
University  and  the  Jesuits"  I'Univers  had  come  to  their  support, 
and  from  May  1843  columns  were  filled  with  articles  defend- 
ing and  praising  them.  Furthermore,  the  editor  of  'TUnivers" 
and  his  colleagues  were  not  slow  to  perceive  that  it  was  not 
so  much  the  Jesuits  who  were  being  attacked  as  the  "Neo- 
Catholic"  movement  and  the  religious  reaction28  they  had 

28  Je  fais  tous  mes  efforts  qui  sont  trops  faibles  sans  doute,  pour 
contenir,  de  concert  avec  M.  Lenormant  .  .  .  et  quelques  autres, 
tine  lutte  vigoureuse  contre  l'enseignement  des  professeurs  du  college 
de  France.  Pendant  que  M.  Quinet  et  M.  Michelet  attaquaient  le 
catholicisme  lui-meme  sous  le  nom  de  Jesuitisme,  j'ai  tache  de  defendre 
dans  trois  conferences  consecutives,  la  Papaute,  les  moines,  l'obeissance 
monastique."  Ozanam,  5  Juin  1843,  quoted  in  "Ozanam"  Mgr.  Ban- 
nard  28. 

"We  read  this  morning  in  the  Constitutionnel  an  article  entitled 
'The  University  and  the  Jesuits.'  Last  year  the  same  paper  wrote  at 
the  head  of  its  diatribes :  The  University  and  the  clergy/  as  for  us, 
we  will  not  be  slow  to  reestablish  the  real  terms  of  the  discussion. 
These  terms  are :  'The  Monopole  Universitaire-Liberty.' " 

"The  Constitutionnel  wanted  to  change  the  subject,  but  we  warn 
them,  they  will  not  succeed.  They  uselessly  evoke  phantoms,  the  order 
will  not  efface  the  promises  of  the  charter.  And  as  long  as  these  prom- 
ises continue  to  be  maliciously  violated  our  perseverance  will  not 
flag.  In  fact,  at  bottom  what  is  the  polemics  of  the  defenders  of 
the  "Monopole"?  What  is  it  but  a  simple  provocation  to  all  the 
passions  and  all  the  hatreds  of  impiety?  What  is  it  but  a  constant  call 
to  a  violent  reaction  from  the  religious  movement  now  operating  in  a 
peaceful  and  orderly  fashion  at  the  heart  of  society?  These  pretended 
liberals  claim  that  they  have  been  attacked  and  that  they  are  avenging 

120 


instigated.    It  really  seemed,  however,  as  if  the  University 

would  carry  this  agitation  still  further  and  restrain  in  all 

directions  the  principle  of  religious  liberty,  for,  about  this 

time  trouble  broke  out  in  an  entirely  different  quarter.  Other 

religious  denominations  found  cause  for  complaint,  and  among 

these  protests  the  most  prominent  was  the  case  of  the  Reformed 

Christian  Church  at  Niort,  d'apres  les  Veynes  (Hautes  Alpes) 

where  the  functions  of  the  pastor  were  interfered  with  by  the 

government  officials.    The  fact  that  the  Catholics  were  not 

the  only  ones  to  complain,  and  that  protestant  bodies  as  well 

found  grievances  tends  to  confirm  the  belief  that  the  "Neo-    *  m^T*i843 

Catholics"  had  a  real  "raison  d'etre."    Of  their  sincerity  no 

one  could  ever  have  the  slightest  doubt. 

It  was  directly  following  the  protestant  protest  that  L'Uni- 
vers  feeling  strengthened  by  their  tacit  support,  called  the 
attention  of  its  readers  to  a  fact  slowly  becoming  apparent  to 
every  unbiased  observer  of  the  agitation;  the  University  was 
not  entirely  in  sympathy  with  the  government.  This  fact  alone 
could  be  explained  by  its  origin : 

"We  have  often  remarked  the  accord  existing  between  the 
dynastic  University  and  the  revolutionary  press  of  all  degrees ; 
between  the  University,  self-styled  orthodox,  and  the  press 
unorthodox  in  every  way;  between  the  University,  daughter, 
mother  and  consort  of  despotism  and  the  entire  liberal  press ; 
from  the  'juste  milieu'  the  most  marked  to  radicalism  the  most 
enflamed.  .  .  . 

"Will  the  government,  parties  and  sects  kindly  tell  us  what 
they  have  gained  since  1830?  Where  is  the  doctrinaire's 
majority  of  the  nth  of  October?  Where  are  the  fighting 
republicans  of  Paris,  Lyons  and  Grenoble?  Where  are  the 
conspirators  of  the  rue  des  Prouvaires  and  the  insurgents  of 
La  Vendee.    Where  is  the  wonderfully  disciplined  opposi- 

themselves,  that  is  to  say  that  for  thirteen  years  they  have  con- 
tinued to  refuse  us  the  right  of  instruction  promised  by  Article  67  of 
the  charter — see  how  we  are  the  aggressors !    And  because  we  dare 
to  reclaim  a  promise  solemnly  sworn,  they  threaten  to  withdraw  or  at 
least  to  restrain  still  more  the  principle  proclaimed  by  an  article  of  v.  I'Univers, 
that  very  charter— religious  liberty.  ^Le^Si'ede3' 
"Fortunately  all  the  world  sees  this  and  all  the  world  judges  them.  2^  rg^ 
What!    They  have  turned  against  the  Jesuits!"  L'Univers,  6  Mai  1843. 


121 


tion  of  Odilon  Barrot?  Strange  thing!  Some  have  had  their 
victories,  others  their  martyrs,  both  have  had  talent,  fortune, 
1'Univers  reversals,  triumphs,  and  all  are  weakened.  Neither  blood  nor 
12i8421  g0^  nor  renown  nor  power  have  been  able  to  gain  them  their 
proselytes;  the  future  has  betrayed  them,  but  all  of  them  have 
betrayed  more  or  less  the  needs  of  a  society  failing  for  want 
of  truth  and  faith." 

It  was  indeed  as  the  "Neo-Catholics"  had  said,  the  Univer- 
sity was  become  a  nucleus  of  the  opposition,  for  the  most  part 
republican,  and  therefore  the  attacks  against  the  Jesuits  were 
republican  in  origin  and  in  reasoning  as  well.    To  a  certain 
extent  these  attacks  were  a  protest  against  an  abstract  principle, 
Catholicism,  but  their  object  and  base  were  real;  the  Jesuits, 
by  existing  laws,  had  no  right  to  be  re-established  in  France.29 
In  this  attack  on  the  Jesuits,  then,  the  Republicans,  through  the 
"Universitaires"  were  denouncing  to  a  large  degree  Catholicism 
in  France,  and  the  government  also  for  being  so  weak  as  to 
permit  the  existence  of  certain  attributes  of  the  Catholic  faith 
legally  prohibited  in  France.    In  such  a  way  had  the  govern- 
ment's efforts  to  escape  the  more  difficult  questions  of  Social- 
ism and  Republicanism  resulted !    They  found  themselves  con- 
Quoti-       fronted  with  the  very  problems  they  had  sought  to  avoid,  and 
dienne,      their  means  of  escape  the  revival  of  a  Liberal  Catholic  princi- 
Mai,  1843  p]e  ha(]  become  an  almost  equal  menace.    But  in  1843  tne 
"two  evils''  (as  they  were  regarded  by  the  creators  of  the 
dynasty)  were  more  developed,  more  imperative  in  their  de- 
mands, and  more  dangerous.   Furthermore,  who  knew  but  that 
these  two  extremes,  Radicalism  (composed  of  the  Socialists 
and  Republicans)  and  the  "Neo-Catholics,"  might  not  become 
embroiled,  and  that  the  Monarchy  might  not  find  itself  between 
the  two,  and  fall  in  the  combat?    Neither  one  nor  the  other 
were  in  a  humour  to  be  tampered  with. 

We  have  seen  what  the  "Neo-Catholies"  had  to  say,  what 
now,  was  the  cry  of  the  Republicans,  the  newly  become 
"Universitaires  "  Thiers,  speaking  of  the  religious  reaction, 
had  declared :  "Le  temps  est  venu  de  mettre  la  main  de  Vol- 
taire sur  ces  gens  la."  The  Journal  des  Debats  hearing  that 
Yillemain  was  considering  the  possibility  of  reconciliation  by  a 

29  "La  Majeste  des  lois  est  compromise."  Constitutionnel,  4  Janvier 
1844. 

122 


law,  urged  him  to  postpone  his  action,  and,  another  important 
personage  seems  to  have  heard  the  warning  of  the  Debats 
for  he  declared :  "Je  ne  souffrirai  pas  que  l'etat  soit  trouble 
par  une  guerre  de  cuistres  et  de  bedeaux"30  All  the  press 
entered  the  arena  and  we  find  as  little  logic  in  their  sympathies 
and  political  positions  as  there  was  in  their  statements.  Ex- 
cept for  the  papers  published  under  the  supervision  of  the 
religious  parties,  the  principal  combatants  on  the  field  were  the 
Journal  des  Debats  and  the  Globe;  the  former  declared 
"If  the  State  supervises  the  sects,  she  does  so  as  much  to  the 
purpose  of  protecting  them  as  for  restraining  them,"  while  the 
other  speaking  of  religious  instruction  repeated  incessantly 
"this  request  based  on  the  charter  is  based  on  common  sense 
as  well."  These  statements  indicate  clearly  the  divisions  exist- 
ing even  within  party  lines,  on  the  question  of  freedom  of  in- 
struction. The  following  few  lines  from  another  paper  betray 
a  division  in  a  far  more  serious  quarter : 

"We  are  given  to  understand  that  the  political  faction  of 
the  ministry,  that  faction  that  thinks  itself  so  clever  and  so 
superior,  blames  the  impulse  given  to  the  press  and  to  the 
official  chairs  (of  the  University)  by  another  party  (in  the 
Cabinet)  disposed  to  second  the  fanaticism  of  the  "Universi- 
taires."  M.  Guizot  thinks  differently  from  M.  Villemain,  and 
M.  Soult  says  he  doesn't  understand  at  all  the  "case  of  con- 
science" of  the  Journal  des  Debats.  But  Guizot  and  M. 
Soult  have  striven  in  vain,  the  University  dominates  and  rules 
them.  .  .  .  This  is  the  antagonism  that  has  just  broken  out 
in  the  midst  of  the  government ;  on  one  side  a  practical  spirit 
of  discipline,  on  the  other  a  spirit-doctrinaire  and  chimerical ; 
on  the  one,  a  policy  clothed  in  the  semblance  of  a  system  of 
morality,  on  the  other,  a  philosophy  coquetting  with  theories 
of  disorder." 

It  did  indeed  seem  a  hopeless  state  of  affairs,  for,  so  divided, 
the  government  certainly  could  not  effect  a  reconciliation  of  the 
two  opponents.  Between  a  divided  ministry,  between  the  "Neo- 
Catholics"  and  the  "Universitaires,"  stood  Louis  Philippe. 
His  attitude  at  this  stage  of  the  agitation  is  interesting.  Of 

™  L'Univers,  18  Mai  1843.  Debidour  ("l'Eglise  et  l'Etat"  463)  at- 
tributes this  remark  to  Louis  Philippe. 


I'Univers, 
18  Mai,  1843 


Journal  des 

Debats, 
15  Mai,  1843 

Journal  des 

Debats, 
12  Mai,  1843 


Le  Globe, 
14  Mai,  1843 


Quoti- 
dienHe, 
18  Mars., 
1843 


v.  Constitu- 
tionnel,  1-3, 
1843 


123 


sympathies  fundamentally  Voltarian  the  king  had  wavered  be- 
tween the  two  ;  alarmed  one  minute  by  the  evidence  of  Republi- 

18  iuCiS^  canism  in  the  University,  at  another  by  the  addition  of  certain 
Legitimists  to  the  "Neo-Catholic"  Party,31  again  by  the  state- 

v.     d'Haus-  ments  of  Thiers  in  regard  to  the  University,  and  then  by  the 
'Tacor-      aPPearance  of  Lacordaire,  the  Dominican,  at  Xotre  Dame  in 
daire,"      the  last  part  of  the  year,  he  had  assumed  an  attitude  of  "laissez- 
faire"  and  appeared  to  desire  to  forget  the  entire  situation. 
Perhaps  in  this  policy,  he  was  not  so  indifferent  and  so  unwise 
as  people  thought  him.32   Nevertheless,  the  question  could  not 
remain  long  in  this  unsettled  condition;  the  state  of  mind  of 
both  parties  would  not  permit  it.    Montalembert  increased  the 
-violence  of  his  demands  before  the  Peers,  and  the  government 
saw  it  could  hesitate  no  longer.    Some  satisfaction  must  be 
given  to  one  or  the  other — the  ministry  were  brought  to  realize 
this  fact,  the  people  had  long  foreseen  it,  and  all  awaited  with 
anxiety  the  opening  of  Parliament  after  the  new  year. 

From  the  very  outset  of  1844,  however,  the  statements  made 
by  the  government  did  not  augur  well  for  the  cause  of  the  "Neo- 
Catholics."  An  early  number  of  Ami  de  la  Religion  et  du 
roi,  too  long  silent  on  the  question,  opened  with  the  follow- 
ing comment : 

"The  reply  of  the  King  of  the  French  to  M.  Letronne  who, 
in  the  name  of  the  "College  de  France"  came  to  pay  his  compli- 
ments on  the  first  of  January,  contains  a  sentence  that  has 
Ami   de    la  caused  us  as  much  pain  as  surprise.    "The  College  of  France, 
duroi,  6     inaugurated  by  Francois  ier  for  the  perfection  of  human  knowl- 
Janv.,  1844    edge,  had  honourably  pursued  its  useful  work.    I  am  glad 
to  tell  you  how  much  I  appreciate  your  efforts."    This  is  the 

31  M.  de  Vatesmil,  one  of  the  strongest  men  in  the  Legitimist  party, 
at  this  time  became  a  member  of  the  Committee  on  Religious  Liberty, 
which  with  Montalembert  as  Chairman,  had  been  formed  in  the 
chamber  of  Peers.   Thureau  Dangin  E  et  E.  212. 

32  "Le  roi  Louis  Philippe  dans  cette  querelle  de  l'Universite  et  des 
Jesuites  n'est  pas  tres  favourable  a  l'Universite.  Si  Villemain  n'a  pas 
propose  cette  annee  sa  loi  organique  sur  l'instruction  secondaire, 
c'est  parceque  le  roi  ne  s'en  est  pas  souci.  'Laissez  faire'  disait-il  au 
Ministre,  'laissons  leur  la  liberte  a  tous.  moyennant  un  tout  petit 
article  de  police.'  Le  roi  est  peutetre  meilleur  politique  en  disant  cela, 
mais  Villemain  est  meilleur  Universitaire."  Chroniques  parisiennes 
Sainte-Beuve  62. 


124 


sentence  that  has  left  so  lasting  and  unfortunate  an  impression 
in  the  minds  of  the  clergy,  for  the  clergy  do  not  consider 
either  as  useful  or  honorable  the  courses  of  MM.  Michelet  and 
Quinet,  so  abounding  as  they  are  in  scandal,  so  hostile  to  re- 
ligion and  so  full  of  calumnies  against  its  priests." 

The  above  remark  of  the  King,  while  not  so  direct  a  compli- 
ment to  the  University  as  his  critics  have  interpreted  it,  was 
nevertheless  another  indication  of  his  attitude.  He  was  afraid, 
to  a  certain  extent,  of  the  clergy,  he  felt  they  were  Legitimists 
at  heart,  and  as  his  relations  with  Mgr.  Afire  became  less  cor- 
dial, this  distrust  seemed  to  increase.33  But  even  this  attitude 
on  the  part  of  the  King  could  not  long  be  maintained  without 
serious  danger  to  a  government  which  was  in  need  of  support, 
and  every  day  statesmen  urged  more  insistently  upon  Ville- 
main  the  necessity  for  a  new  law.  Among  the  most  anxious 
of  these  was  Guizot.  Although  we  cannot  find  any  evidence  of 
M.  Guizot's  speaking  in  either  House  on  the  subject  of  instruc- 
tion from  1840  until  well  into  the  year  1844  and  although  he 
seemed  up  to  this  time  to  have  left  the  question  to  Villemain 
and  his  associates,  still  his  belief  in  the  absolute  need  for 
church  participation  in  public  instruction  had  not  waned.  This 
silence  must  have  been  caused  by  his  desire  to  keep  to  his 
ideal  of  maintaining  to  the  end  a  conservative  majority.  Later, 
when  commenting  on  his  actions  at  this  time,  he  said : 

"In  the  matter  of  public  instruction,  I  said :  'All  rights  do  not 
belong  to  the  State ;  there  are  some,  I  will  not  say  superior,  but 
anterior  to,  and  coexisting  with  them.  There  are,  in  the  first 
instance,  rights  of  the  family,  children  belong  to  the  family 
before  they  belong  to  the  state.  The  state  has  the  right  of 
distributing  instruction,  of  directing  it  in  its  own  establish- 
ments, and  of  superintending  it  everywhere;  it  has  not  the 
right  of  imposing  it  arbitrarily  and  exclusively  on  families  with- 
out their  consent  or  perhaps  against  their  will.  The  system  of 
the  Imperial  University  did  not  allow  this  primitive  and  in- 
violable right  of  families." 

The  view  of  those  of  the  Liberals  not  exactly  allied  with  the 

33  Louis  Philippe  is  said  to  have  remarked :  "Je  n'aime  pas  les  col- 
leges ecclesiastiques,  on  enseigne  trop  aux  enfants  de  chanter  le  verset 
de  magnificat,  Deposuit  potentes  de  sede."  Quoted  in  Thureau  Dangin, 
E  et  E,  from  Vie  de  Mgr.  Afire  Cruice  307. 

125 


I' Universe, 
18  Janv., 

1844 

Speech  of 
de  Tocque- 
ville,  ch.  of 

peers,  17 
Janv. 


"Universitaires"  at  this  time  is  somewhat  different.  An  exam- 
ple of  this  attitude  is  found  in  de  Tocqueville's  criticism  of  the 
speech  delivered  by  Louis  Philippe  to  the  Chamber  of  Deputies 
on  its  reopening  in  January.  In  his  discourse  the  King,  strange 
contradiction,  had  uttered  the  usual  platitudes  on  the  peace  and 
happy  condition  of  the  country: 

"You  say  that  peace  reigns,  I  will  tell  you  again  that  the 
fight  has  simply  changed  ground;  from  political  it  has  become 
philosophical  and  religious.  .  .  .  Without  a  doubt  the  liberty 
of  instruction  has  been  the  principal  cause  and  pretext  of  this 
war,  but  the  strife  has  extended  far  beyond  these  limits  even. 
Listen  to  the  parties.  Do  some  of  them  demand  only  liberty 
of  instruction ;  rather  do  they  not  go  so  far  as  to  attack  even 
liberty  of  thought,  the  very  principle  of  education?  Look  at 
the  others  and  you  will  see  that  they  do  not  limit  themselves 
to  speaking  of  the  University  and  its  rules  alone,  but  they  at- 
tack religion  itself,  and  the  general  principles  and  rules  on 
which  it  reposes.  I  say  to  you  that  the  question  of  liberty  of 
instruction  was  of  such  a  nature  as  to  irritate  profoundly  the 
minds  of  men  and  more  than  any  other,  to  give  rise  to  the 
struggle  that  we  condone.  You  have  left  this  question  thir- 
teen years  without  solution.  .  .  .  The  clergy  ...  I  say  that 
the  clergy  does  not  possess  any  of  those  ancient  bonds  which 
formerly  attached  it  to  wealth  and  to  power  .  .  .  the  concor- 
dat placed  it  in  a  position  of  happy  dependence  on  the  jurors; 
that  its  only  remaining  force  in  the  political  world  was  the 
sympathy  of  the  men  of  liberty,  and  I  add  that  by  the  very 
action  at  this  time  of  some  of  its  members  it  is  losing  this 
sympathy.  Then,  gentlemen,  its  isolation  will  become  so  com- 
plete, so  intolerable,  so  desperate,  that  sooner  or  later  it  will 
throw  itself  into  the  arms  of  whoever  offers  it  power.  And  as 
in  certain  other  countries,  it  will  become  transformed  into  the 
political  agent  of  the  state ;  then  we  will  have  the  most  despic- 
able of  all  human  institutions,  a  political  religion,  a  religion 
servile  to  the  government  and  assisting  in  the  oppression  of 
its  people  instead  of  preparing  the  way  for  liberty." 

This  was  the  warning  de  Tocqueville  gave  his  confreres  of 
the  possible  result  of  their  procrastination.  This  speech  paved 
the  way  for  another  law  on  the  subject,  the  chambers  were 


126 


notified  that  a  new  proposition  would  be  submitted  to  them  in 
the  course  of  a  few  weeks.34 

On  the  second  of  February  Villemain  submitted  his  law.  In 
general  it  resembled  very  much  the  law  proposed  in  1841. 
There  were  five  principal  provisions: 

1.  The  right  to  open  establishments  of  instruction  is  recog- 
nized in  principle,  and  this  right  is  extended  to  all  citizens, 
but— 

2.  Members  of  unauthorized  orders  are  excepted. 

3.  The  State  reserves  to  itself  the  right  of  supervision. 

4.  The  right  to  open  a  school  for  instruction  is  subordi- 
nated to  guaranties  of  personal  morality  and  ability,  but  the 
first  of  these  must  come  from  the  municipal  or  judicial  authori- 
ties for  that  purpose  for  each  academy. 

5.  Ecclesiastical  schools  of  secondary  grade  (small  semin- 
aries) are  to  remain  under  the  regime  of  privilege. 

This  was  the  attempt  the  Administration  made  to  prove  it- 
self liberal.  It  is  in  Article  two,  however,  that  we  find  what 
was  to  prove  the  real  bone  of  contention.  In  this  clause  may 
be  seen  the  direct  influence  of  the  "Aux  Jesuites"  cry  raised  by 
those  very  "Universitaires"  under  whose  direct  authority  all 
educational  institutions  were  not  placed.  Villemain's  law  did 
not  have  a  cordial  reception,  it  was  acceptable  to  one  party,  but 

34  The  remarks  of  the  President  of  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  on  the 
announcement  of  this  intention  were,  however,  a  fair  premonition  of 
what  the  result  would  be :  "Nous  accueillons  avec  empressement 
l'assurance  que  le  projet  de  loi  qui  nous  sera  presente  en  satisfaisant 
au  voeu  de  la  charte  pour  la  liberte  de  l'enseignement,  maintiendra — 
l'autorite  de  1'  l'Etat  sur  l'instruction  publique."  L'Univers,  25  Janv. 
1844. 

A  criticism  of  the  above  remark,  made  in  the  Chamber  the  following 
day  showed  the  "Neo-Catholics"  that  they  would  find  some  support 
"L'autorite  de  l'Etat  sur  l'instruction  libre !  Mais  je  ne  comprends 
pas  cette  alliance  des  mots;  Qu'est  ce  que  l'autorite?  Cherchez  en  la 
definition.  Vou  trouverez  que  l'autorite  c'est  le  droit  et  le  pouvoir  de 
commander.  Commander  a  la  liberte  Messieurs,  mais  si  on  venait 
nous  demander  ice  d'etablir  une  autorite  une  action  sur  la  liberte 
de  la  presse  y'aurait — il  assez  de  voix  pour  fletrir  une  pareille  heresie 
contre  la  Constitution?  Eh,  bien,  Messieurs,  la  liberte  de  l'instruc- 
tion, est — elle  moins  sacree  moins  precieuse  que  la  liberte  de  la  presse? 
Voulez-vous  etablir  les  categories  de  liberte?"  L'Univers,  26  Janv.  1844. 

127 


v.  Grimaud, 
"Hist,  de  la 

Liberte 
d'Enseigne- 
ment,  329- 
335 


VUnivers, 
5  Ferier, 
1843 


v.  Le  Na- 
tionel,  Nos. 
3-4,  Fev., 
1844 

Constitu- 
tionnel,  12 
Fev.,  1844 


v.  Journal 
des  Debats} 
2  Fevrier, 
1844 


not  to  the  other ;  it  was  not  a  compromise  and  did  not  offer  the 
slightest  possibility  of  solving  the  difficulty. 

L'Univers  addressed  the  following  warning  to  the  Cham- 
bers who  were  to  deliberate  on  it : 

"Moreover,  we  do  not  forget,  Messieurs,  that  article  69  of 
the  Charter  of  1830  prescribed  a  twofold  purpose  to  the  atten- 
tion of  the  legislators ;  'public  instruction  and  the  liberty  of 
teaching.'  By  these  terms  the  Charter  indicates  that  the  exten- 
sion and  perfection  of  the  schools  should  be  coincident  with  or 
even  precede  any  serious  modification  of  the  legal  regime  under 
which  all  "ecoles  particulieres"'  have  heretofore  existed."35 

The  disappointment  occasioned  by  the  new  law  was  general.36 
Even  some  of  his  own  party  turned  against  Villemain,  claim- 
ing that  he  has  lost  a  glorious  opportunity.37  The  Journal 
des  Debats  and  the  National  alone  supported  him  and  de- 
clared that  the  law  was  in  all  respects  perfect  and  that  what- 
ever secondary  provisions  had  been  made,  such  as  in  heading 
two  of  the  law,38  were  rendered  necessary  by  the  events  of  the 
past  three  years.  The  majority  of  the  people,  however,  seemed 
to  agree  in  the  following  opinions,  the  one  expressed  by  a 
paper  formerly  a  supporter  of  Villemain,  the  other,  by  the 

35  Another  paper  noting  the  attack  on  the  Jesuits  contained  in  the 
new  law  remarked :  "La  pensee  de  ces  dispositions  n'est  pas  heureuse : 
elle  ne  sera  conciliee  avec  les  principes  d'aucun  des  systemes  ac- 
ceptables,  mais  nous  ne  concevons  pas  ce  parti  pris  de  voir  tout  le 
projet  dans  une  de  ces  dispositions  secondares  que  sera  necessairement 
modifiee  et  a  la  quelle  le  ministere  n'a  certainement  pas  attache  le 
sort  de  son  projet."    La  Presse,  7  Fev.  1844. 

36  Another  article  from  this  same  paper  shows  more  clearly  the 
fact  that  certain  of  the  liberals  realized  the  necessity  of  real  freedom: 
''Si  l'instruction  publique  s'est  renfermee  jusqu'  ici  dans  l'Universite,  ne 
voit-on  pas  que  c'est  precisement  cet  etat  de  choses  qu'il  s'agit  de 
changer  aujourd'hui  pour  obeir  a  la  charte?  Xe  voit-on  pas  que 
l'enseignement  libre  doit  etre  constitue  a  l'enseignement  national  que 
le  ministre  de  l'instruction  publique  doit  perdre  desormais  son  role 
unique  et  exclusif  de  grand  maitre  de  l'Universite,  pour  devenir  le 
tuteur  des  ecoles  libres  comme  celui  des  ecoles  Universitaires  et  pour 
peser  egalment  les  uns  et  les  autres  dans  la  balance  impartiale  de 
l'autorite  publique?"    La  Presse,  8  Fev.  1844. 

87  "Au  lieu  de  se  considerer  comme  le  grand  pontife  de  l'enseignement 
universal,  il  est  reste  le  general  de  corps  enseignant  laique,  le  superieur 
du  couvent  Universitaire."    Courricr  Francois,  12  Fev.  1844. 

"V.  p.  56. 

128 


Comte  de  Maistre  in  explaining  the  situation  to  the  English 
people :  "It  is  a  party  act  and  not  one  of  the  whole  government" 
said  the  Constitutionnel;  while  de  Maistre  declared : 

"If  we  do  not  return  to  ancient  maxims,  if  education  be  not 
restored  to  the  clergy,  and  if  science  be  not  placed  in  second 
rank,  the  evils  which  await  us  are  incalculable ;  we  shall  be 
brutalized  by  science,  which  is  the  last  degree  of  debasement." 

Judging  from  the  law  itself  and  the  criticisms  quoted,  it 
does  indeed  seem  as  if  the  University  had  lost  the  only  reason 
it  might  have  had  for  its  claims,  and  had  itself  assumed  the 
very  attitude  toward  secondary  education  which  it  had  accused 
the  "Neo-Catholics"  of  seeking.  The  battle  royal  over  the  law 
took  place  in  the  chamber  of  Peers.  From  the  very  beginning 
it  augured  well  for  the  "Neo-Catholics"  as  the  "projet"  was 
given  for  examination  to  a  committee  headed  by  de  Broglie  and 
Mole.  The  debate  opened  the  22nd  of  April  and  lasted  twenty- 
nine  days.  The  Chamber  divided  at  once  into  three  parties  ;  the 
"Universitaires  exclusifs"  who  seemed  to  have  but  one  leader 
Cousin,  the  "Xeo-Catholics"  under  Montalembert,  Seguier  and 
Beugnot,  and  the  Ministers,  not  all  of  whom  were  even  of 
accord.  At  first  it  was  a  battle  of  Cousin  and  Villemain  against 
Martin  who  represented  the  government,  and  who  was  later 
assisted  by  Guizot.  The  reporting  Committee,  however,  was 
weak,  and  while  they  did  attempt  to  make  a  few  reforms  in  the 
bill,  their  efforts  were  so  feeble  that  Guizot  found  himself  em- 
barrassed by  the  revised  bill  placed  before  the  Chamber.39 
But  while  little  actual  gain  was  made  by  the  Catholics  in  the 
discussion,  the  results  proved  to  be  significant  enough.  Mon- 
talembert, by  his  eloquence  gained  them  more  sympathy  and 
moral  support  each  day.  He  routed  entirely  Villemain,  as  was 
acknowledged  even  by  his  most  hostile  critics,40  and  M.  Guizot 

M"Du  travail  de  M.  de  Broglie  il  resulte  done:  i°  que  l'Universite 
est  une  ecole  de  mauvaises  doctrines  ainsi  que  les  eveques  Ten  ont 
convaincu ;  20  que  toute  concurrence  religieuse,  entreprise  entre  ces 
doctrines  sera  vaine  et  illusoire  sous  la  regne  de  la  loi  proposee." 
L'Univers,  19  Avril  1844. 

40  "Si  de  nos  jours  une  question  se  decide  par  Tissue  de  combat 
entre  deux  champions,  apres  le  duel  de  M.  de  Montalembert  et  M. 
Villemain  a  la  tribune  de  la  chambre  de  Paris  l'Eglise  pourrait  se 
croire  triumphante,  l'Universite  n'aurait  plus  que  demander  merci. 
Que  voulez-vous?  la  partie  n'etait  pas  egale.    .  .  .  Le  debut  de  M. 

129 


London 
Times, 
Feb.  17, 
1844 


Le  Com- 
merce, Feb. 
17,  1844 


did  not  fare  much  better  in  his  plea,  outwitted  as  he  was  again 
and  again  by  Montalembert.41 

So  far  the  debate  had  not  resulted  favourably  for  the  Univer- 
sity, nor  for  the  government.  The  ever-observant  people,  in 
turn,  were  not  slow  to  recognize  this  fact  and  the  newspapers 
hailed  it  with  varying  emotions.42  Evidently  the  arguments 
for  their  opponents  had  not  been  well  presented,  and  the  "Neo- 
Catholics"  might  well  anticipate  a  victory.  They  were  not  dis- 
appointed. After  much  debate,  at  the  suggestion  of  de  Broglie 
the  matter  was  put  to  vote  and  the  result  was  at  least  a  partial 
victory  for  the  Catholics.  For  while  they  were  defeated  185 
to  51,  they  had  succeeded  in  obtaining  a  larger  opposition  vote 
in  the  Chamber  of  Peers  than  had  been  known  for  some  time. 
This  fact  in  itself  is  significant.   The  "Neo-Catholics"  had,  in- 

Villemain  a  eu  lieu  sous  de  tristes  auspices.  II  avait  pour  lui  l'assemblee 
et  il  a  ete  vaincu.  .  .  .  Cet  homme  Montalembert  croit,  il  croit  dans  un 
siecle  d'incredulite,  il  l'exprime  avec  une  energique  simplicie,  et  une 
sorte  de  sainte  arrogance;  ou?  Dans  une  tribune  politique  que  M.  Pas- 
quier  domine,  et  sa  parole  a  librement  et  fterement  passe  entre  la 
curiosite  de  ce  spectacle  original  et  le  respect  de  cette  grandeur  que 
communique  une  croyance  intrepidement  sincere."  Courrier  Fran- 
gais,  17  Avril  1844. 

41  Montalembert's  reply  to  Guizot  was  delivered  ten  days  later.  He 
said  in  part:  "J'appelle  avec  lui  (Guizot)  le  moment  de  ce  qu'il  a 
nomme  la  reconcilation  entre  l'Eglise  et  l'Etat.  Je  le  desire  vivement 
tout  le  monde  le  desire.  Mais,  pour  qu'elle  soit  durable  et  sincere,  il 
faut  qu'elle  soit  fondee  sur  la  justice.  Le  projet  de  loi  que  Ton  nous 
propose  et  que  M.  Guizot  a  couvert  de  son  silence  rend  cette  reconcil- 
iation impossible,  et  c'est  pour  cela  que  je  viens  de  la  combattre." 
L'Univers,  27  Avril  1844. 

43  "Le  ministre  a  defendu  l'education  universitaire  et  attaque  les 
Jesuites;  c'etait  simple,  mais  il  n'a  plus  parle  de  la  domination  du  clerge; 
c'est  un  fait  dont  nous  felicitons  d'autant  plus  M.  Villemain  qui  a 
vraiment  besoin  d'etre  encourage."   Quotidienne,  27  Avril  1844. 

"Rien  de  plus  facile  assurement  que  de  refuter  M.  de  Montalembert; 
mais  on  a  laisse  le  soin  a  M.  Villemain,  et  celui-ci,  devient  deci 
dement  le  plus  mediocre  des  orateurs,  comme  il  est  le  plus  faible  des 
ministres."    National,  27  Avril  1844. 

"Sur  tous  les  autres  points  du  discours  de  M.  de  Montalembert,  la 
reponse,  appartenait  au  ministre  de  l'instruction  publique,  et  M.  Ville- 
main a  engage,  en  effet,  de  refuter  cette  multitude  d'affirmations 
tranchantes  qui  tiennent  bien  des  preuves  pour  les  catholiques.  Mais 
comment  refuter  des  pures  affirmations?"  Journal  des  Dcbats,  27 
Avril  1844.    v.  also  Messager  des  Chambres,  27  Avril  1844. 

130 


deed,  gained  a  victory,  and  their  leader  in  the  Chamber  of 
Peers  had  once  told  them  that  to  do  this,  they  must  become  an 
"Embarras  politique."  The  result  of  this  vote  seemed  to  show 
that  the  time  was  not  far  off. 

On  the  ioth  of  June  Villemain's  law  was  placed  before  the 
Chamber  of  Deputies.    Thiers  was  named  chairman  of  the 
Committee  on  revision.    This  appointment  in  itself  boded  ill 
for  the  "Neo-Catholics,"  but  the  personnel  of  the  committee 
gave  them  cause  for  brief  encouragement:  M.  M.  de  Tocque- 
ville,  Saint-Marc-Girardin,  Quintette,  Dupin  de  TAine  and  de 
Carne.   The  Committee's  work  was  not  destined  to  accomplish 
anything  of  importance,  however,  as  Thiers,  when  making  its 
report,  placed  so  much  emphasis  on  the  Jesuits  that  he  uncon- 
sciously turned  the  attention  of  the  Chamber  solely  in  that  di- 
rection.43 There  followed  a  second  outburst  of  charges  against 
the  "Neo-Catholics."    The  accusations  brought  against  them 
were  much  the  same  as  those  the  Jesuits  had  had  to  disprove 
the  previous  year — Legitimist  sympathies.44    The  Journal  des 
Debats  had  not  allowed  this  charge  entirely  to  die  out  and 
earlier  in  the  year  they  had  reminded  their  readers  of  it.45 
Other  papers  too,  had  followed  their  example  and  a  flood  of 
recriminations  followed.46.    A  tactical  blunder  was  made  in 
directing  the  accusation  against  M.  de  Montalembert.   Most  of 
his  enemies  could  not  doubt  for  a  moment  the  sincerity  of  this 
young  champion  of  religious  freedom,  and  he  experienced  little 
difficulty  in  clearing  himself  of  the  complaints  so  ruthlessly 
brought  against  him. 

Persistent,  however,  in  their  efforts  to  discredit  the  "Neo- 
Catholics"  at  all  costs,  their  opponents,  alarmed  by  the  early  ^J*,™^ 
signs  of  success  in  the  Chamber  of  Peers,  revived  that  anti-  ^ 
Jesuit  agitation  which  had  been  allowed  to  quiet  down  during 
the  discussion1  of  the  law.    Early  in  May  the  "Journal  des 
Debats  had  reopened  this  field  of  controversy  by  asking : 

"Will  the  Jesuits  become  the  masters  of  education  in  France  v.  supra 
or  not  ?  That  is  the  question  now  being  agitated  in  the  Cham-  Maw8 

"Moniteur,  10  Juin  1844. 

"Journal  des  Debats,  17  Dec.  1843;  12  Fev.  1844. 
45  Courrier  Frangais,  13  Fev.  1844. 

"v.  also  their  refutation  I'Univers,  13  Fev.   1844.      v.  letter  of 
Montalembert  to  Journal  des  Debats,  12  Fev.  1844. 


131 


Moniteur, 
15  Juillet, 

1844 
Speech  of 
Thiers,  13 
Juillet,  1844 


ber  of  Peers,  fourteen  years  after  the  Revolution  of  July, 
under  a  government  sprung  from  that  Revolution,  before  a 
ministry  whose  principal  members  were,  under  the  Restoration, 
deprived  of  their  chairs  and  prosecuted  by  the  Jesuits.  The 
reply  in  our  opinion,  is  not  uncertain.  No,  the  Jesuits  will  not 
become  the  masters  of  education  in  France.  The  government 
of  France  will  not  thus  betray  its  origin."47 

There  were  not  many,  however,  who  held  the  extreme  view 
of  the  Journal  des  Debats.  On  the  contrary,  there  were 
many  who  felt,  what  was  probably  true,  that,  according  to  the 
letter  of  the  law,  the  Jesuits  should  be  expelled,  but  that  the 
other  policy  of  an  inquisition  into  the  conscience  of  every 
one  who  wanted  to  teach  was  odious.  Of  these,  Thiers  was 
the  principal  advocate.  On  the  thirteenth  of  July  his  famous 
report  upon  Villemain's  law  was  read.  This  report  is  impor- 
tant for  it  marks  the  first  beginning  of  a  coalition  between  the 
University  and  Adolphe  Theirs,  now  become  the  new  leader  of 
the  Republican  party.  Furthermore,  it  was  a  readjustment  of 
his  political  creed  to  meet  a  new  situation  and  it  predicts  his 
policy  for  the  year  1845. 

"What  will  result,  gentlemen,  from  this  struggle?  Nothing 
but  the  triumph  of  Reason,  if  you  know  how  to  be  patient  and 
persevere.  The  Church  is  a  great,  an  august  power,  but  she 
has  not  exerted  herself  to  have  the  right  on  her  side  in  this 
case.  In  former  times  she  has  triumphed  over  persecution ; 
that  is  true,  and  ought  to  be  to  the  honour  of  humanity.  She 

47  Another  paper,  more  reasonable  and  yet  really  of  the  opposition, 
saw  the  entire  affair  in  another  light.  The  contrast  is  curious :  "Nous 
comprenons  et  nous  admettons  qu'on  exclue  de  la  France  l'ordre  des 
Jesuites.  C'est  ta  dire  que  Ton  l'empeche  de  etablir,  d'acquerir,  de  pos- 
seder  des  membres ;  mais  qu'on  descend  dans  la  conscience  de  tous  les 
citoyens,  qu'on  sonde  inquisitorialement  leur  vie  privee,  leurs  sentiments 
intimes  et  qu'on  les  force  a  declarer  et  a  signer,  pour  avoir  la  faculte 
d'instruire  la  jeunesse,  qu'ils  appartiennent  nia  l'ordre  des  Jesuites,  ni 
a  aucune  ordre  prohibe,  par  les  lois,  voila,  qui  est  monstrueux  autant 
qu'insense;  voila  qui  choque  les  idees  les  plus  elementaires,  voila  qui 
f  erait  reculer  la  France  et  toutes  les  conquetes  morales  de  deux  siecles ; 
voila  qui  retablirait  ce  que  Tesprit  d'intolerance  a  jamais  montres  de 
plus  etroit,  de  plus  tyrannique  et  de  plus  vexatoire ;  viola  ce  qui  met- 
trait  veritablement  le  gouvernement  de  Juillet  en  danger.  Oui,  excluez, 
tant  qu'il  vous  plaira  l'ordre  des  Jesuites,  mais  n'excluez  pas  la  liberte," 
Le  Globe,  10  Mai  1844. 

132 


will  not,  however,  triumph  over  Reason  calm  and  respectful  but 
inflexible.'' 

All  this  discussion  was  to  come  to  nothing  and  the  progress 
of  events  was  interrupted  by  a  calamity.  The  "Universitaires" 
had  found  in  Thiers  a  leader ;  they  were  to  need  him  badly,  for 
Villemain  was  slowly  becoming  the  victim  of  a  mental  disease. 
In  December  insanity  seized  upon  him,  and  Guizot  appointed 
in  his  place  de  Salvandy,  a  man  more  in  sympathy  with  the 
"Neo-Catholic"  demands.  Out  of  respect  to  Villemain  and  his 
affliction  a  sort  of  armed  truce  ensued  for  the  remaining  few 
weeks  of  the  year  1844. 

What  an  evolution  had  this  young  and  ardent  group  of 
Romanticists,  the  "parti  catholique''  experienced  in  the  brief 
space  of  four  years.48  Beginning  as  simple  religious  teachers 
they  had  become  a  real  factor  in  parliamentary  affairs.  So 
great,  in  fact,  had  been  their  progress  that  the  men  of  the 
opposition  had  had  to  resort  to  the  policy  of  persecuting  them. 
This,  in  turn,  had  resulted  to  the  glory  and  increase  of  the 
persecuted,  instead  of  to  the  advantage  of  their  persecutors. 
Even  the  government,  misjudging  them  as  harmless,  had 
brought  them  forward  as  a  happy  distraction  from  other 
dangers,  betrayed  them,  and  then  found  their  distraction 
become  an  equally  serious  menace.  Placed  between  this  men- 
ace and  the  danger  of  Communism,  the  government  had  first 
attempted  to  conciliate,  then  failing  this,  to  lavish  its  praises 
upon  the  one  and  then  the  other.  This,  too,  met  with  slight 
success.  In  the  meantime  the  opposition  had  presented  the 
Jesuit  protest ;  this  seemed  to  have  served  as  a  fair  distraction 
and  might  have  succeeded  had  it  been  handled  more  carefully, 
had  its  agitators  been  less  fanatical  than  their  opponents.  The 
Ministry  was  not  slow  to  perceive  this  possibility,  and  now, 
in  turn,  they  seemed  to  have  resolved  to  seize  upon  the  Jesuit 
question,  and,  strange  paradox,  they  believed  that  they  could 
make  it  a  means  of  conciliation.  By  appealing  to  Rome  they 
planned  to  dissolve  the  order  in  France,  that  would  conciliate 
the  opposition,  and  then,  the  Jesuits  out  of  the  way,  they 

48  "Ce  que  nous  avons  gagne  dans  cette  derniere  campagne,  en  verite, 

en  force,  en  avenir  est  a  peine  croyable.  .  .  .  Je  ne  crois  pas  que  v>  London 

l'histoire  presente  une  aussi  surprenante  peripetie."     Lettres  Lacor-  Times, 

daire,  1  Juin  1844.  Dec.  17,  i«44 


133 


would  try  to  submit  a  law  satisfactory  to  the  "Neo-Catholics." 
So  it  was  that  his  minister  of  public  instruction  become  insane, 
Guizot,  the  minister  of  foreign  affairs,  by  the  appointment  of 
de  Salvandy,  a  man  whom  he  knew  could  control,  brought  the 
question  of  liberty  of  instruction  into  his  own  department  and 
determined  to  settle  it  himself  by  a  policy  of  conciliation  and 
mutual  concessions  at  home,  made  possible  through  diplomacy 
at  Rome.  The  Ancona  affair  was  to  be  reacted  in  another 
sphere,  but  after  all,  in  the  same  sense,  Guizot  was  to  deceive 
and  then,  in  turn,  be  himself  bitterly  deceived.  This  new 
policy  will  be  considered  in  the  next  chapter. 


134 


CHAPTER  VI 


THE  VICTORY  OF  THE  "NEO-CATHOLICS." 
THE  FALL  OF  THE  JULY  MONARCHY 

In  the  last  few  years  of  the  reign  of  Louis  Philippe  that 
state  of  apathy  and  political  indifference  remarked  at  the  be- 
ginning of  Quizot's  administration  (1840)  became  the 
dominant  characteristic  of  the  French  nation.  Its  cause,  it 
will  be  remembered,  was  found  in  the  failure  of  the  July 
Monarchy  to  fulfill  the  hopes  and  ambitions  of  its  originators, 
and  the  consequent  reign  of  selfish  interests.  But  this  fact 
alone  could  not  account  for  the  political  indifference  France 
displayed  at  that  time.  The  mere  statement  that  the  bour- 
geoisie had  lost  interest  and  were  disappointed  is  not  sufficient. 
They  did  not  even  make  the  slightest  attempt  to  force  the 
government  to  carry  out  their  wishes,  and  there  were  several 
reasons  to  account  for  this.  In  the  first  place  they  did  not 
know  how  to  compel  the  Monarchy  to  follow  the  line  of 
conduct  they  desired,  and,  too,  they  had  refused  all  help 
offered  them. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  July  Revolution  the  bourgeoisie  had 
found  themselves  for  the  first  time  in  power  and  they  were 
hopelessly  inexperienced.     Neither  the  Revolution  with  its 
heroes  of  a  day,  the  Empire  with  its  dearly  bought  victories, 
nor  the  Restoration,  had  given  them  any  opportunity  to  take 
lessons  in  the  art  of  governing  a  people.    They  had  come 
to  the  front,  then,  in  1830,  entirely  without  experience  or 
practice,  claiming  to  uphold  vague  principles  of  Constitutional 
government,  but,  untutored  as  they  were  in  the  practice  of  v  xhureau, 
those  principles,  they  had  found  the  load  upon  their  hands  Dangin, 
far  too  heavy.   Other  men  were  well  versed  in  politics  but  the      49-52  ' 
stolid  bourgeois  did  not  appeal  to  them.    They  distrusted  the 
nobles,  the  only  class  who  had  had  much  experience  in  gov- 
erning.   In  this  distrust  they  were  wrong.    The  old  nobility 


135 


v.  I'Univers, 
13  Fevr., 
1845 
et  nos.  seq 
also 
Monta- 
lembert, 
Discours, 
13  Janv., 
1845 


was  fast  disappearing,  and  among  the  younger  generation 
there  were  many  who  could  have  helped  them,  and  if  they 
had  confided  in  them,  they  would  not  have  abused  that  confi- 
dence. Liberal  Romanticism  had,  as  has  been  seen,  claimed 
many  adherents  among  the  younger  nobility  who  pos- 
sessed those  very  elements  of  chivalry,  heroism  and  generosity 
which  the  average  bourgeois  lacked  and  yet  so  direly  needed. 
Among  the  younger  aristocracy,  then,  there  was  much  ma- 
terial which  would  have  been  useful,  but  the  bourgeoisie, 
blind  in  its  own  jealousy,  did  not  perceive  the  good  and 
saw  only  an  evil  that  was  slowly  being  eradicated.  Had 
they  but  realized  their  own  short  sightedness  in  time,  it  might 
have  been  their  salvation,  but,  as  it  was,  selfish  interests 
reigned  more  completely  than  ever.  It  was  only  among 
the  members  of  Parliament  then,  that  real  political  interest 
existed.1  These  parliamentarians  were  scattered  among  a 
number  of  groups;  the  "Neo-Catholics"  with  their  pro- 
gramme of  liberty  of  instruction,  the  Republicans  with 
such  questions  as  the  supremacy  of  the  University  and 
Electoral  Reform — so  soon  to  be  made  a  more  serious  ques- 
tion by  Lamartine's  inauguration  of  "Reform  Banquets;"  the 
Extreme  Left  constantly  advocating  Socialism,  Communism 
and  the  Right  of  the  Individual,  and  finally,  the  Government 
with  its  few  supporters  interested  in  a  personal  policy  of 
saving  their  own  necks.  The  greatest  agitation,  however, 
continued  to  center  around  the  "Neo-Catholics"  and  their  de- 
mand for  liberty  of  teaching  and  of  religion — a  controversy 
that  the  opposition  had  frequently  sought  to  cloak  with  the 
Jesuit  question. 

After  the  fatal  illness  of  Villemain  there  ensued  for  a  time 
a  sort  of  armed  truce.  During  this  brief  period  of  calm  Dupin 
(confrere  of  Odilon-Barrot)  published  his  famous  "Manuel 
du  droit  publique  ecclesiastique,"  an  indirect  assault  on  all 
ultramontane  theses  and  an  attempt  to  arouse  what  the  author 
believed  would  prove  a  salutatory  reaction  to  Gallicanism. 

1  "Le  publique  ne  s'occupe  que  de  ses  speculations,  de  ses  affaires. 
II  n'a  pas  de  gout  en  ce  moment  pour  la  politique  il  s'en  defie;  il 
craint  en  etre  derange.  II  a  eu  ainsi  des  engouements  successifs; 
sous  l'Empire,  les  bulletins  de'l  Armee,  sous  la  Restauration  la  liberte, 
aujourd'hui  c'est  la  Richesse."    Rossi,  Revue  des  deux  Mondes  1842. 

136 


This  effort,  ably  combated  in  L'Univers  by  de  Bonald,  Arch- 
bishop  of  Lyons,  failed.  Another  event  of  importance  was  the  3"  F^v ^  l84^ 
definite  nomination  of  Salvandy  as  Minister  of  Public  Instruc- 
tion. The  appointment  of  an  ally  of  Dupin  and  Saint-Marc 
Girardin  did  not  in  itself  offer  too  promising  a  prospect  to  the 
"Neo-Catholics,"  but  Salvandy  was  more  kindly  disposed  than 
Villemain.  A  belief  in  the  church  and  its  share  in  affairs,  as 
a  political  necessity  was  not  a  brief  in  religion  for  religion's 
sake,  but  it  was  better  than  intolerance  and  vague  protestation. 
It  was  soon  realized,  however,  that  the  new  Minister  would 
play  a  minor  and  very  inconspicuous  part  in  the  settlement  of 
the  question  that  so  vitally  concerned  his  department;  for  it 
was  not  long  before  it  escaped  the  confines  of  the  province  of 
instruction  and  was  carried  into  the  realms  of  diplomacy. 
The  Jesuit  question  was  revived. 

In  reality,  the  Jesuit  protest  had  never  ceased,  but  had  con- 
tinued active  under  the  surface  from  the  time  of  its  first  en- 
trance into  politics.    The  Journal  des  Dcbats  still  declaimed 
that  their  presence  in  France  was  contrary  to  the  law,  while 
the  Constitutionnel  continued  to  publish  regularly  a  chapter  of  I'jjnivers 
"Le  Juif  Errant,"  by  Eugene  Sue.    In  1845  all  that  was  nec-     12  Avril, 
essary  to  revive  the  question  was  an  event  attracting  public  1845 
attention.    This  was  offered  in  the  ''Affaire  Affnaer,"  an  in- 
cident unimportant  enough,  but  destined  to  become  the  occa-  Consti- 
sion  for  the  reappearance  and  final  "solution"  of  the  agitation,  tutionnel, 
A  former  Jesuit  named  Affnaer,  had  been  the  economat  (man-    ^^s^1 ' 
ager  and  treasurer)  of  one  of  the  Jesuit  establishments  in 
France.    He  had  stolen,  he  had  been  expelled,  and  now,  to 

avenge  himself  upon  the  order  which  had  ruined  his  reputation  National, 

12  ^\.vril 

and  published  his  shame,  he  took  advantage  of  the  prejudice  jg45  ' 
against  that  body  to  air  his  complaints,  recounted  with  all  the 
black  details  of  a  Reformer  of  the  Sixteenth  Century.  His 
cause  was  taken  up  at  once  by  the  Republicans,  and  the  matter 
did  not  remain  long  outside  the  Debates  of  the  Chamber.  On 
April  14,  Cousin  taking  occasion  to  speak  of  the  "Affaire  Aff- 
naer" before  the  Chamber  of  Peers  demanded  that  the  govern- 
ment put  into  immediate  execution  the  existing  laws  prohibiting 
the  establishment  of  the  Company  of  Jesus  in  France.  Im- 
mediately the  Republican  papers  circulated  petitions  upholding 


137 


Journal  des 
Debats,  15 
Avril,  1845 


National, 
15  Avril, 
1845 


v.  Carica- 
ture, by 
A.  Gill, 
"La  Carica- 
ture Fran- 
chise au 
XIX 
Siecl/e,"  pu- 
blic par. 
Armand 
Dayot 


Cousin's  demand.  The  Opposition  through  the  Journal  des 
Debats,  asked : 

"Why,  in  this  question  of  the  Jesuits,  do  they  not  enforce 
the  laws  concerning  "congregations  d'hommes  and  if  the 
Order  is  good  and  worthy  to  be  saved,  do  they  not  enforce 
the  laws  concerning  "congregations  d'hommes"  and  ask  the 
Chambers  to  authorize  the  Jesuits'  rights  in  France?  We  are 
of  the  opinion  ourselves  that  one  or  the  other  of  these  two 
laws  must  be  enforced  while  waiting  for  M.  de  Montalembert 
to  successfully  proclaim  "la  liberte  illimitee  de  toute  chose." 

To  such  protests  the  government,  through  M.  Martin  (du 
Nord)  replied:  "I  have  already  said  that  several  associations 
are  tolerated  in  France.  The  duty  of  the  government  is  to 
discern  and  wait.  It  would  never  do  to  provoke  the  clergy  to 
angry  protests." 

The  government  and  Guizot  must  have  been  in  very  hard 
straits  indeed,  when  they  could  make  no  better  answer  to  the 
demands  of  the  people  they  were  supposed  to  serve.  Guizot 
saw  that  he  could  not  defend  the  Jesuits  without  serious  danger 
to  the  dynasty,  but  he  must  defend  religious  liberty.  This  was 
the  problem  confronting  the  Ministry,  and  while  it  was  deter- 
mining on  a  plan  of  solution,  the  opposition  were  putting  the 
final  touches  to  their  scheme  of  assault. 

This  time  the  Jesuit  Question  was  revived  in  the  Chamber 
of  Deputies  and  Thiers  was  the  principal  agitator.  From  the 
very  outset,  however,  an  important  fact  should  be  borne  in 
mind.  Thiers,  as  leader  of  the  Republicans,  had  become  a 
sponsor  for  the  cause  of  the  University,  but  in  all  probability 
he  was  not  fighting  this  fight  for  a  great  moral  principle.  In 
fact,  his  own  actions  do  not  permit  the  acceptance  of  any  such 
idea.  Undoubtedly  there  were  other  interests  far  more  vital 
to  the  political  future  of  the  "Oiseau  sur  la  Branche."  Thiers 
had  foreseen  the  inevitable  end  of  the  government,  but  it  was 
not  to  be  for  him  the  end ;  he  was  determined  that  his  own 
political  life  should  not  be  shortened  by  any  possible  fatality 
to  the  dynasty.  As  leader  of  both  oppositions  he  felt  he  had 
a  career  to  fight  for,  and  the  Jesuit  question  became  in  his  eyes, 
a  mere  political  hobby-horse  on  which  he  hoped  to  ride  into 
the  Cabinet,  from  which  he  had  resigned,  and  wrest  the 


138 


portfolio  from  Guizot.  The  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  on 
the  other  hand,  was  well  aware  of  the  intention  of  his  adver- 
sary, and  realized  that  the  policy  either  of  favoring  or  sup- 
pressing the  Jesuits  would  be  a  victory  for  Thiers  and,  in 
either  event,  would  lead  to  his  own  resignation.  Guizot,  then, 
saw  only  one  possible  escape  open  to  him — a  recourse  to  Rome. 

In  the  meantime,  Thiers  had  roused  the  Deputies.  On  the 
2nd  of  May,  1845,  ne  made  his  famous  interpellation  on  the 
legality  of  the  position  of  the  Jesuits  in  France  and  the  danger 
to  the  country.  Posing  as  an  apostle  of  the  new  era  and  a 
believer  in  what  he  termed  "the  modern  spirit"  he  traced  the 
history  of  the  Jesuits  in  France  from  the  very  beginning,  and  ^ 
showed  how  they  had  interfered  in  the  affairs  of  State  in  past  '  118-9 
time.  Basing  his  complaint  upon  the  early  laws  of  the  Revo- 
lution, the  Ordonnances  of  1812  and  1825,  and  the  July  Or- 
donnance  of  Charles  X  in  the  year  1828,  he  then  criticised  the 
attitude  of  M.  Martin  (du  Nord)  and  de  Salvandy.  His  tac- 
tics were  clever,  at  some  points  in  the  interpellation  he  did 
not  fail  to  pose  as  a  moderate.  Could  it  be  believed  that  this 
attack  was  entirely  sincere  it  would  be  an  admirable  piece  of 
work,  but  it  is  well  to  have  in  mind  Thiers'  policy  and  words 
at  a  later  epoch  when  reading  the  following  citation  from  his 
speech : 

"As  for  me,  I  am  convinced  that  by  far  the  majority  of  the 
French  clergy  is  animated  with  a  good  spirit,  with  respect  for 
the  laws  of  the  country,  and  that  it  is  faithful  to  the  State. 
But  I  also  believe  that  there  is  a  faction  among  them  that  Is 
compromising  the  clergy  in  the  eyes  of  the  government.  It  is 
just  the  same  thing  as  existed  at  the  time  of  the  institution  of 
the  Concordat  when  a  part  of  the  clergy  did  not  recognize  the 
Concordat.  This  faction  was  still  living  during  the  Restoration, 
and  it  exists  today. 

"Where  will  we  find  this  faction?    I  will  speak  frankly;  I    Speech  of 
believe  that  the  first  impulse  has  come  from  the  Jesuits.  fore^Cham- 

"I  will  not  recall,  gentlemen,  all  that  has  been  said  about  ber  of  Dep- 
the  Order  of  Jesuits;  I  am  fair-minded;  I  do  not  believe  in  uties;845Mal' 
all  the  popular  prejudices  existing  against  this  famous  com-  VUnivers, 
munity ;  things  have  changed  since  two  centuries  ago,  and  they  3  Cm^titu-^ 
must  indeed  have  been  in  a  most  unhappy  condition  not  to  tionnel, 


139 


have  changed.  Today,  however,  the  Jesuits  are  become  the 
refuge  whither  go  restless  and  ardent  souls  that  they  may  find 
there  the  force  of  association.  At  every  period  there  has  been 
a  moderate  and  also  an  exaggerated  spirit."2 

Thiers'  efforts  enjoyed  immediate  success,  and  the  following 
day  the  Chambers  voted  the  famous  "ordre  du  jour"  of  May  3, 
appointing  a  bureau  to  draw  up  a  law  against  the  Jesuits.  A 
3  v^also4^   £reat  victory  was  acclaimed  by  the  opposition ;  Thiers'  paper 
24  Mai,  1845  declared:  "L'opposition  avait  fait  une  fois  de  plus  l'office  du 
gouvernement." 

j  The  question  arises,  however,  whether  after  all,  Thiers  had 

Debats  not  ^or  political  purposes  made  a  mountain  out  of  a  mole  hill. 
;5  Mai,  1845  It  would  have  been  impossible  for  the  Jesuits  so  recently  re- 
turned and  living  under  such  restricted  conditions,  to  have 
become  a  real  menace  to  the  government.  There  were  some 
who  had  not  lost  their  heads  and  who  realized  this  fact.3 
Moreover,  the  party  of  "Neo-Catholics,"  those  really  attacked, 
did  not  fail  to  see  that  the  Jesuit  agitation  and  the  question  of 
public  instruction  were  being  used  by  the  opposition  as  a  poli- 
tical club  to  drive  out  Guizot.  They,  in  their  turn,  uttered  a 
rather  serious  warning: 

"Saturday's  vote  has  caused  the  Journal  des  Debats  some 
anxiety ;  they  fear  that  M.  Thiers  is  trying  to  make  it  a 
weapon  against  the  Ministry,  and  they  devote  the  first  part  of 
their  article  to  explaining  that  'this  vote  is  rather  a  mark  of 
confidence  than  blame  for  the  government.'  The  Constitution- 
nel  on  the  other  hand,  tries  to  prove  that  all  the  glory  of  that 

I'Umyers,  ^ay  should  go  to  their  patron.  It  is  evident  that  the  anti- 
6  Mai,  1845  " 

'  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  de  Ravignan  and  Dupanloup  were  in 
the  gallery  of  the  Chamber  on  the  2nd  and  3rd  of  May.  de  Pont 
levoy  Vie  du  P.  de  Ravignan.  I,  313. 

3  "En  1845,  sous  le  regime  de  la  liberte  de  la  presse,  a  la  clarte  d'un 
firmament  de  journaux,  declarera-t-on  sans  rougir,  qu'il  n'y  aura 
plus  d'associations  autorisees  se  proposant  un  but  de  bienfaisance 
ou  de  moralisation,  que  celles  qu'il  sera  bien  demontre  que  la  religion 
n'a  aucune  part,  et  si  Ton  recule  devant  une  pareille  monstruosite, 
devant  un  tel  anachronisme,  dedlarera-t-on  sans  rire  que  l'existence 
de  trois  ou  quatre  cents  Jesuites  vivant  dessimines  dans  27  maisons  est 
un  danger  qui  menace  le  19*  siecle  et  34,000,000  d'habitants,  les  libertes 
publiques  et  le  progres  des  idees,  la  tranquility  de  I'Etat  et  le  repos 
des  families."    La  Presse,  5  Mai  1845. 


140 


religious  furor  of  these  two  sheets  does  not  prevent  them  from 

looking  to  their  "interets  de  boutiques/'   For  that  matter,  both 

are  right.    In  fact,  it  was  in  the  hope  of  grabbing  the  power 

that  Thiers  raised  the  question  of  religious  communities,  and  it  L'Univers 

•  ,    ,         ,  ™         ,  r  ,     18  Janv.  1844 

was  in  order  that  they  might  keep  their  portfolios  a  few  weeks  speech  of  de 

longer  that  our  Ministers  have  so  promptly  sacrificed  religious  Tocqueville 
...  *        T,      •    t        t.  +  -  *  a         a  ch  of  Peers 

liberty.    That  is  how  the  government  is  run  today.    Are  you     I7  janv 

still  surprised  that  a  government  that  exists  and  legislates  in 

such  a  manner,  is  without  force  and  without  definiteness  ?" 

Seeing  no  help  in  prospect  from  the  government,  the  Jesuits 
were  preparing  a  legal  battle  for  their  existence  in  France,  by 
basing  their  claims  on  the  Article  in  the  Charter  allowing  asso- 
ciations, and  in  maintaining  that  the  acceptance  of  a  charter 
which  contained  this  article  annulled  all  past  legislation.  Cer-  v.  de  Pont- 
tainly  they  had  the  law  on  their  side.  In  fact  what  proofs  but  ^evoy'  r'  317 
the  slanderous  and  scandalous  reports  of  their  adversaries  can 
be  found  against  them?  The  use  of  slander  and  scandal  often 
implies  the  lack  of  reliable  statements  and  well-founded 
charges.  Of  the  latter,  after  a  diligent  search,  not  the  slightest 
evidence  has  been  found  for  the  entire  period  of  the  July 
Monarchy,  and  it  is  impossible  to  admit  as  proof  of  their 
evil  at  this  time,  a  reference  to  a  reputation  in  the  past  mani- 
festly of  an  unsavory  nature. 

But  the  government  had  not  been  so  inactive  as  the  two 

adversaries  had  imagined.    In  fact,  while  Thiers  had  been 

occupied  in  publicly  berating  the  Order  and  the  weakness  of  a 

government  which  would  tolerate  its  establishment,  Guizot  had  Devour, 

,  .  .   ,      E  et  E,  460, 

set  a  curious  counter  policy  to  work.    His  adoption  of  it  be-  467 

trays  his  entire  ignorance  of  the  laws  and  usages  of  the  Roman  £^re-au 

Communion.    It  had  not  been  easy,  however,  for  Guizot  to  in-     g  et  E, 

augurate  this  last  desperate  attempt,  for,  from  the  very  outset  409-410 

he  has  been  hampered  by  the  king's  words :  "Do  not  deceive 

yourselves,  I  will  not  risk  my  crown  for  the  Jesuits."  These 

words  did  not  serve  to  help,  but  rather  embarrassed  Guizot's 

policy.    He  desired  to  defend  the  liberty  of  the  Jesuits,  but 

not  the  Jesuits  for  themselves,  for  having  in  mind  the  fall  of 

Charles  X,  he  feared  for  the  July  Monarchy  in  any  case.4 

4 Apropos  of  this  fear  Thureau  Dangin  (E  et  E  391)  remarks:  "O 
brievete  de  la  sagesse  politique  quand  elle  pretend  discerner  ce  qui 


141 


Accordingly  after  the  unsuccessful  effort  to  force  the  bishops 
to  intervene,  Guizot,  sent  M.  Pellegrino  Rossi,  an  Italian  who 
possessed  a  reputation  not  agreeable  to  the  Apostolic  See, 
to  lay  the  entire  matter  before  the  Pope  and  persuade  him  to 
dissolve  the  Jesuit  Order  in  France  !5  When  Thiers,  then,  made 
his  interpellation  thereby  rendering  necessary  some  reply  from 
the  government,  Guizot  shortly  afterwards  was  able  to  an- 
nounce that  the  government  already  had  under  way  a  plan  of 
solution  and  that  M.  Rossi  would  present  in  the  course  of  the 
month,  a  memorandum  to  Cardinal  Lambruschini.  Such  was 
the  escape  Guizot  had  planned  for  the  government  and  for 
himself.  Under  such  circumstances  and  with  such  selfish  inter- 
ests in  view  it  was  just  as  well  that  he  should  have  selected  a4 
man  of  Rossi's  calibre  who  possessed  a  reputation  for  extreme 
liberal  sentiments,  and  who  certainly  was  not  over-impressed 
with  the  virtue  or  necessity  of  the  "Neo-Catholic"  demands,* 

perd  et  ce  qui  sauve  les  gouvernements !  On  jetait  des  religieux 
pardessus  bord  pour  alleger  le  navire  qui  portait  la  fortune  de  la 
Monarchic ;  et  quand  peu  apres  soufflera  la  tourmente  ce  sera  ce  grand 
et  beau  navire  que  sombrera,  tandisque  la  petite  barque  des  jesuites 
arrivera  au  port;  la  revolution  qui  jettera  la  famille  d'Orleans  en 
exile,  fera  disparaitre  les  derniers  vestiges  de  proscription  pesant  sur 
la  compagnie  de  Jesus,  et  M.  Thiers  lui-meme  proclamera,  devant  le 
pays  cette  sorte  d'emancipation." 

5  Apropos  of  the  character  of  M.  Rossi  there  are  various  reports 
but  all  seem  to  agree  that  he  was  of  a  type  not  too  acceptable  for  the 
time  at  least,  to  the  Pope.  The  Jesuits'  opinion  of  him  is  as  follows: 
"M.  Rossi  etait  un  de  ces  conditierri  de  l'intelligence  qui  n'ont  d'autre 
patrie  que  le  lieu  6u  il  leur  est  permis  d'abriter  la  fortune  sous  leur 
tente."   J.  Cretineau-Joly,  "Hist,  de  la  Compagnie  de  Jesus,"  IV,  392, 

Guizot  says  of  Rossi :  "An  Italian,  avowedly  liberal,  and  a  refugee 
from  Italy  on  account  of  his  liberal  opinions,  the  embassy  of  Rossi 
could  not  fail  to  startle,  I  will  even  say  to  alarm,  the  Court  of  Rome; 
but  there  are  salutary  alarms,  and  I  knew  M.  Rossi  to  be  extremely 
well  adapted  to  calm  those  he  might  inspire ;  and  at  the  same  time  to 
turn  them  to  account  for  the  success  of  his  mission.  His  liberal  con- 
victions were  deeply  rooted,  but  expanded  and  untainted  by  any 
spirit  of  system  or  party;  his  mind  was  extremely  free,  though  not 
fluctuating,  and  no  one  more  capable  of  seeing  persons  and  things 
in  their  true  light,  and  of  restraining  his  daily  actions  within  the 
limits  of  what  was  practicable  without  ceasing  the  constant  pursuit 
of  his  object."    Guizot,  France  under  Louis  Philippe.    Chap.  V.  363. 

'  It  has  been  asserted  that  Rossi  even  warned  the  Pope  to  beware 


142 


Despite  all  this  evidence,  Guizot's  language  when  explaining 
his  action  is  not  indicative  of  any  ulterior  motives  he  may  have 
entertained  at  this  time: 

"I  proposed  to  the  King  and  Council  not  to  abandon  the 
laws  in  vigour  against  religious  communities,  and  to  carry  the 
question  of  the  dissolution  of  the  Society  of  Jesus  in  France 
to  its  supreme  and  uncontested  Chief,  to  the  Pope  himself. 
The  Civil  French  Power  did  not  thus  renounce  the  legal  arms 
with  which  it  was  provided;  but,  in  the  interest  of  religious 
peace,  as  also  of  religious  influence  and  liberty  in  France,  it 
invited  the  spiritual  power  of  the  Catholic  church  to  relieve  it 
from  its  exercise.  The  King  and  Council  adopted  my 
proposition."7 

The  general  tendency,  however,  was  to  ridicule  this  resort 
to  diplomacy  inaugurated  by  Guizot,  and  neither  the  "Neo- 
Catholics"  nor  their  opponents  expected  any  result  at  all  from 
Rossi's  mission.  Montalembert,  now  the  acknowledged  and 
undoubted  leader  of  the  "Neo-Catholic  Movement" — as  its  de- 
tractors continued  to  call  it — felt,  therefore  that  it  would  be 
advisable  to  bring  the  Jesuit  matter  up  before  the  Chamber  of 
Peers,  and  in  that  way  demonstrate  to  the  political  world  that 
his  party  did  not  rely,  by  any  means,  on  Guizot's  policy.  Ac- 
cordingly, on  the  12th  of  June,  Montalembert,  seconded  by 
Beugnot,  laid  the  question  before  the  High  Chamber  by  inter- 
rogating M.  Martin  (du  Nord).  He  used  this  occasion  to 
deliver  an  eloquent  defense  of  the  Jesuits  as  well  as  to  show 
the  government  that  the  "Neo-Catholics"  were  aware  that  the 


Guizot : 
"France 
under 
Louis 
Philippe, 
362 


of  the .  "Neo-Catholics"  and  their  friends  the  Jesuits,  who  were 
nothing  else  than  "la  coda  di  La  Mennais."  Thureau-Dangin.,  411, 
E  et  E. 

7  It  is  a  curious  fact  to  note  that  even  de  Ravignan  seemed  to  have 
at  first  a  certain  amount  of  faith  in  Guizot.  At  the  time  of  the  first 
agitation  he  had  remarked :  "II  m'a  etonnee  par  la  superiority  de  ses 
vues;  par  son  estime  pour  la  compagnie,  par  la  maniere  dont  il  se 
prononqait  contre  toutes  les  preventions  et  les  attaques  aux  quelles 
nos  sommes  en  lutte.  Je  sais  positivement  que,  dans  le  conseil  des 
ministries,  il  a  parle  en  notre  faveur.  .  .  .  Je  ne  me  confierai  sans  doute 
qu'avec  mesure  a  sa  politique  et  a  ses  opinions,  mais  il  merite  cependant 
plus  d'estime  que  la  plupart  des  nos  gouvernants."  Lettre,  29  December 
1843.   Pontlevoy  Vie  de  Ravignan  I,  338. 


143 


Dep.  off 
Rossi  a 
Guizot,  23 
Juin,  1845 


Guizot, 
"France 
under 
L.  P,"  409 


Messager 
des  Cham- 
bres,  5  Juil- 

let,  1845 
Journal  des 
Dcbats, 
6  Juillet, 
1845 


entire  agitation  was  a  mere  struggle  to  keep  their  portfolios.8 
In  addition  to  showing  the  government  that  people  were  not 
blind  to  their  infidelity,  this  speech  had  the  result  of  hastening 
the  negotiations  at  Rome.  Montalembert  had  so  routed  M. 
Martin  (du  Nord)  that  the  government  felt  they  could  no 
longer  maintain  their  dignity  without  an  immediate  reply  from 
the  Pope.9  Acting  on  instructions,  received  from  Guizot,  there- 
fore, Rossi  became  more  urgent  in  his  demands,  and  Lambrus- 
chini  is  said  finally  to  have  assured  Rossi  that  the  order  of  the 
Jesuits  in  France  would  be  dispersed ;  its  novitiates  dissolved, 
and  a  few  ecclesiastics  who  should  exercise  only  the  functions 
of  priests  should  remain  in  the  establishment  as  caretakers. 
But  Guizot  did  not  think  this  assurance  binding  enough,  and  he 
instructed  Rossi  to  ask  that  this  promise  be  presented  in  writ- 
ing to  the  French  government. 

The  rest  of  the  story,  according  to  Guizot  is  as  follows: 
In  the  meantime  Lambruschini  had  retracted  slightly,  the  Pope 
had  found  his  Council  unfavorable,  and  the  Cardinal  demanded 
that  the  Jesuits  "have  the  honour  of  acquiescence."  Father 
Roothan,  general  of  the  Order,  then  reluctantly  transmitted  his 
injunctions  to  de  Ravignan  in  France.  Guizot  now  thought 
himself  justified  in  allowing  the  following  notice  to  appear  in 
the  official  newspapers : 

"Le  gouvernement  du  Roi  a  regu  des  nouvelles  de  Rome. 
La  negotiation  dont  il  avait  charge  M.  Rossi  a  attteint  son  but. 
La  Congregation  des  Jesuites  cessera  d'exister  en  France  et  va 

8  "When  you  have  behind  you,  among  the  great  statesmen  of  past 
time  Henri  IV,  and  among  the  kings  of  today  the  wise  and  enlightened 
Leopold,  when  you  have  behind  you,  in  the  spiritual  world,  the  sov- 
ereign authority  of  the  church,  you  can  await  with  confidence  the 
judgment  of  posterity  and  console  yourself  for  having  been  denounced 
by  the  Ministry  of  the  first  of  March  and  betrayed  by  the  Cabinet  of 
October  29  to  passions  far  less  powerful  and  less  furious  against 
religion  than  against  order,  the  throne  and  society  as  a  whole."  (Quoted 
in  I'Univers,  12  Juin  1845.) 

8  "M.  de  Montalembert  a  ete  plus  heureux  dans  ses  attaques  contre 
M.  Martin  (du  Nord).  II  a  mis  dans  tout  son  jour  la  conduite  equi- 
voque et  incertaine  du  gouvernement,  tiraille  sans  cesse  entre  la  crainte 
du  clerge  et  la  peur  de  la  chambre,  et  le  ridicule  d'une  mission  diplo- 
matique avortie  avant  meme  d'etre  commencee."  Constitutionnel, 
12  Juin  1845. 


144 


se  disperser  d'elle-meme;  ses  maisons  seront  fermees  et  ses 
noviciats  dissous." 

Thus  the  French  government  proclaimed  itself  victorious 
without  a  scrap  of  paper  except  the  letters  of  Rossi  to  prove 
their  victory.10 

For  a  moment  the  "Neo-Catholics"  who  had  taken  up  the 
cause  of  the  Jesuits,  believed  themselves  lost.  They  were  even 
astonished  at  what  appeared  to  be  the  action  of  the  Vatican, 
for  they  had  received  the  impression  from  their  correspondent 
at  Rome  that  the  entire  affair  was  going  in  the  opposite  di- 
rection and  that  Rossi  was  failing  in  his  mission.11  Further- 
more, the  opposition  had  shared  in  the  impression  of  the  "Neo- 
Catholics"  and  even  after  July  6  were  not  inclined  to  credit 
the  official  note  of  the  government  inserted  in  the  Moniteur.12 
In  this,  the  opponents  of  the  government  displayed  extraordin- 
ary clear-sightedness.  The  sorrow  of  the  "Neo-Catholics" 
was  not  to  be  of  long  duration,  the  doubts  of  the  opposition 
were  soon  to  be  confirmed.  For  on  the  7th  of  July  the  fol- 
lowing editorial  appeared  in  one  of  the  morning  papers : 

"Letters  from  Rome  dated  the  28th  and  29th  of  May  have 
reached  us.  They  contradict  the  notice  inserted  yesterday  in 
the  Messager  and  this  morning  in  the  Moniteur.  This  notice 
is  based  on  a  scandalous  equivocation.  Concessions  were  made, 
it  is  true,  but  not  at  all  of  the  nature  intimated  by  the  official 
announcement.  It  is  of  prime  importance  to  note  that  these 
concessions  do  not  emanate  from  the  venerable  authority 
which  they  had  wished  to  identify  with  M.  Guizot's  policy. 
In  brief,  the  honour  and  right  of  the  Holy  See  are  safe,  and 


National, 
7  Juillet, 
1845 


Quotx- 
dienne, 
7  Juillet, 
1845 


10 1  have  been  unable  to  find  any  other  official  documents  on  this 
subject  except  the  notes  of  Rossi  to  Guizot. 

"v.  VUnivers,  1  Juillet  1845.  When  the  official  announcement  ap- 
peared, I'Univevs  expressed  some  surprise  and  remarked.  "Cette 
nouvelle  qu'aucune  lettre  de  Rome  nous  avait  laisse  prevoir,  brise  nos 
coeurs,  rein  ne  peut  ebranler  notre  foi ;  si  Rome  l'ordonne,  les 
Jesuites  se  soumettront.  L'Eglise  de  France  luttera  sans  eux  comme 
elle  a  lutte  pour  eux.  Leur  depart  n'enleve  rien  a  ses  droits,  il  ajoute 
a  ses  devoirs."    L'Univers,  6  Juillet  1845. 

u  "II  reste  toujours  a  demander  compte  au  ministere  en  supposant 
que  cette  nouvelle  se  verifie,  de  la  dignite  nationale  dans  une  negocia- 
tion  pareille."   La  Reforme,  6  Juillet  1845. 


v.  Constitu- 
tionnel, 
6  Juillet, 
1845 


145 


the  plot  framed  by  the  government  will  result  to  its  own  shame 
and  to  its  own  detriment." 

It  was,  as  this  paper  had  declared,  and  as  the  "Neo-Catho- 
lics"  themselves  soon  perceived,13  an  utter  deception  on  the 
part  of  the  government.  There  are  four  witnesses  substan- 
tiating this  opinion ;  two  official  letters  from  the  General  of  the 
Company  of  Jesus  to  the  provincial  in  France,  a  letter  of  Rossi 
to  Guizot,  a  letter  of  the  Papal  Secretary  to  the  Apostolic  Le- 
gate in  Paris,  and  finally  the  subsequent  actions  of  the  Jesuits 
themselves,  all  of  whom  are  bound  to  obey  explicitly  the  orders 
of  their  General.  These  documents,  then,  prove  two  facts, 
first  that  the  order  came  from  the  superior  of  the  Jesuits  and 
not  from  the  Pope  as  Guizot  had  desired,  and  also  that  the 
official  notice  of  the  government  published  in  the  Moniteur  and 
Messager  exaggerated  the  facts. 

On  June  14,  while  the  negotiations  were  still  in  progress, 
de  Roothan  had  written  a  letter  to  de  Ravignan,  the  provin- 
cial, and  in  this  letter  he  remarks : 

"It  is  hard  for  me  to  give  such  an  order,  but  I  believe  it  is 
my  duty  to  advise  this  measure  of  prudence.  I  hope  it 
will  be  done  quietly,  and  as  I  have  told  you,  without  any 
show;  this  is  much  better  from  every  point  of  view  than  if  it 
should  take  place  later  with  trouble  and  tumult." 

From  this  letter,  then,  it  may  be  assumed  that  it  was 
Roothan  who  gave  the  orders  and  not  the  Pope.  On  the 
2 1  st  of  January  he  wrote  another  letter  to  de  Ravignan 
directing  him  to  dissolve  entirely  or  in  part  according  to  his 
better  judgment,  three  houses,  the  establishment  at  Saint- 
Acheul  and  several  novitiates.    He  adds : 

"Nous  devons  tacher  de  nous  effacer  un  peu,  et  expier  ainsi 
la  trop  grande  confiance  que  nous  avons  eue  dans  la  charte  et 
qui  ne  se  trouve  que  la." 

""La  note  publiee  par  le  Messager,  a  pu,  grace  a  l'ambiguite  de  sa 
redaction,  faire  croire  des  choses  qu'elle  ne  dit  pas.  Le  but  de  M  Rossi 
a  ete  atteint  en  ce  sens  que  les  Jesuites  frangais  peuvent,  sur 
l'avis  de  leur  general,  renoncer  a  l'usage  d'une  partie  de  leur  droits 
de  citoyens  ne  pas  plaider,  se  disperser  meme,  il  n'importe.  mais  le 
ministre  semblait  annoncer  une  inter-vention  du  Saint  Siege;  tout 
le  monde  y  a  ete  trompe,  et  nous  l'avons  cru  nous-memes."  L'Univers, 
8  Juillet  1845. 

146 


There  is  only  one  possible  letter  from  Rossi  on  which  the 
official  notice  of  July  5th  and  6th  could  have  been  modeled, 
and  then  only  by  an  inexact  interpretation : 

"The  purpose  of  our  negotiation  has  been  reached.  .  .  .  The 
Congregation  will  disperse  of  its  own  accord,  the  novitiates 
will  be  dissolved,  and  only  those  ecclesiastics  necessary  to  ^f^0 
take  care  of  their  property  will  remain,  while  they,  in  turn,  23  Juin,  1845 
will  live  as  ordinary  priests." 

A  comparison  will  show  that  the  official  note  inserted  in 
the  Moniteur  and  Messager  does  not  correspond  exactly 
with  the  letter  quoted. 

The  third  corroboration  is  still  more  definite,  the  letter  of 
the  Papal  Secretary  to  the  Legate  at  Paris. 

"Now  as  far  as  the  question  of  what  steps  to  take  is  con- 
cerned, I  tell  you  that  there  never  was  any  intention  that  the 
Jesuits  should  close  their  houses  or  that  their  property  should 
be  confiscated.    After  reading  the  Ministerial  note  (inserted 
in  the  papers)  I  protested  to  M.  Rossi  and  he  declared  most 
emphatically  that  he  had  not  written  it.    Furthermore,  people     4  Aout, 
who  ought  to  know  declared  that  M.  Rossi  has  informed  in-  1845 
directly  the  Rev.  Fr.  General  of  the  Jesuits  that  he  ought  ^1^324.5^ 
not  to  interpret  the  words  literally. 

Your  Excellency  may,  therefore,  tell  the  Jesuits  in  the 
guise  of  advice,  to  adhere  strictly  to  whatever  their  Fr. 
General  tells  them  to  do,  but  they  are  by  no  means  obliged 
to  exceed  the  instructions  of  their  superior."14 

By  far  the  most  convincing  evidence  of  the  real  under- 
standing between  Rome  and  the  July  Monarchy,  however,  is 
found  in  the  subsequent  actions  of  the  Jesuits.  Three  houses 
at  Paris,  Lyons  and  Avignon,  were  closed.  Two  novitiate 
houses  were  abandoned — one  at  Saint-Acheul,  the  other  at 
Laval.  This  action  corresponds  exactly  with  the  instructions 
issued  to  the  provincial,  and  as  the  government  did  not  publicly 
accuse  the  Jesuits  of  failing  to  fulfill  the  whole  of  their  con- 
tract, it  seems  that  these  injunctions  must  have  been  the  sole  and 

"Debidour  E  et  E  69.  Quotes  a  letter  from  Rozaven  to  Ravignan 
dated  June  25,  1845,  in  which  the  above  statement  are  confirmed.  I 
have  not,  however,  been  able  to  find  any  trace  or  mention  of  this  letter 
elsewhere,  so  refrain  from  using  it. 


147 


only  agreement  made  between  Guizot  and  the  Jesuits  through 
Rossi,  not  an  agreement  with  Gregory  XVI  personally. 

The  question  of  the  understanding  between  these  two  courts 
settled,  another  query  arises.  Why  had  Rome  advised  the 
Jesuits  to  yield  at  all  ?  This  time  the  cause  lay  not  so  much 
in  foreign  influence  as  in  the  unsettled  condition  of  the  Italian 
Barry,  clergy.  The  aged  Pope  was  failing,  and  at  the  very  moment 
of  Thiers'  interpellation  the  ideas  of  the  "New  Guelf  were 
becoming  dominant.  Led  by  such  men  as  Gioberti  and  Cesare 
Balbo  they  sought  to  place  a  "Lamennasian  Pope''  in  St. 
Peter's  chair.  This  new  party  did  not  favour  the  Jesuits 
and  their  theories ;  they  were  also  the  enemies  of  all  despotic 
and  semi-despotic  governments,  and  so  they  opposed  Austria 
and  France.  Their  influence  is  said  to  have  been  exerted 
against  both  Guizot's  policy  and  the  Jesuit  order.  So  much 
for  a  possible  explanation  of  Rome's  action. 

How,  then,  had  Guizot  fared  in  France  after  the  Jesuit 
fiasco?  Among  the  people  there  was  general  dissatisfaction, 
and  out  of  this  unhappy  condition  appeared  the  first  sign 
of  a  rapprochement  of  the  "Neo-Catholics''  and  the  Moderate 
Republicans ;  both  demanded  an  explanation  in  the  Chamber 
of  Peers.  It  remained  for  Guizot  to  defend  a  defenceless 
policy.  On  the  15th  of  July  Guizot  pleaded  his  cause,  main- 
taining that  his  policy  had  been  the  wisest  and  most  prudent 
in  extremely  delicate  circumstances.  Montalembert  contra- 
er  I  p  434  di^d  him  in  no  dubious  terms  and  tore  aside  the  veil  with 
which  Guizot  had  attempted  to  hide  the  real  import  of  the 
affair.  He  again  established  the  original  bases  of  the  struggle.15 
Thus  in  the  middle  of  the  year  1845  tne  Premier  found  him- 
self confronted  with  the  same  question  he  had  tried  so  hard 

Thureau 

Dangin,  15  "J'ai  besoin  a  vous  dire  que  toute  la  question  n'est  pas  la,  qu'il  y  a 
yjis*"'  dans  les  lettres,  qui  ont  ete  portees  si  souvent  a  cette  tribune  et  ailleurs, 
'  3$  depuis  quelques  annees,  tout  autre  chose  que  la  question  des  Jesuites. 
Lorsque  M.  le  Ministre  des  Affaires  Etrangeres  disait  tout  a  l'heure 
que  maintenant  le  clerge  ne  courait  plus  risque  de  prendre  la  ques- 
tion des  Jesuites  pour  la  sienne,  il  a  oublie  que  le  clerge  avait  deja  sa 
question,  et  non  seulement  le  clerge  mais  encore  tous  les  catholiques, 
tous  les  hommes  religieux  de  France  etaient  occupes  d'une  question 
qui  survivra  a  celle  des  Jesuits,  comme  elle  l'a  precedee,  e'est  a  dire  la 
question  de  la  liberte  religieuse  et  de  la  liberte  de  l'enseignement." 
Montalembert's  words,  15  July,  L'Univcrs,  16  Juillet  1845. 

148 


to  avoid  and  had  attempted  to  divert  into  another  channel 

He  was  indeed  in  an  embarrassing  position;  other  questions, 

of  an  economic  nature  were  pressing,  and  to  avoid  these 

he  could  not  yet  settle  the  matter  nor  discontinue  the  fight.  v;  v£™x .  de 
J  la  Keligion 

The  question,  then,  returned  to  its  old  basis.  The  Neo-  et  du  Roi,  6 
Catholics"  resumed  their  former  activities  and  the  Committee  Auut>  l84^ 
for  the  Defense  of  Religious  Liberty  was  enlarged.  Mon- 
talembert  remained,  of  course,  the  President,  while  M. 
Vatesminel,  minister  of  Public  Instruction  under  Charles  X, 
was  elected  vice-president  and  M.  Henri  de  Riancey  secre- 
tary. The  Committee  now  counted  among  its  members  such 
men  as  the  Marquis  de  Barthelemy,  Amedee  Thayer  and  M. 
Clappier ;  these  names  are  significant  as  they  were  all  members 
of  the  Chambers.  In  August  Montalembert  issued  his  famous 
charge  to  the  electors  of  France  and  the  opposition  replied 
by  an  attempt  to  prove  the  action  of  the  Committee  seditious. 
But,  this  effort  met  with  little  success.16  It  is  interesting  to 
note  in  passing,  that  at  this  time  the  "Neo-Catholics"  were 
confronted  with  an  enemy  long  recognized  as  such,  but  here- 
tofore silent.  These  were  the  old  Gallicans  under  the  leader- 
ship of  Ami  de  la  Religion  et  du  roi  who  seemed  to  regret 
the  fame  and  honour  gained  by  their  more  progressive  brothers 
in  the  Faith,  and  condoned  the  activity  of  the  Committee. 
Among  their  own  number,  too,  the  "Neo-Catholics"  began  to 
find  some  who  believed  that  the  new  school  had  fought  hard 
and  long  enough.  One  of  this  number  was  Frederic  Ozanam,  Qor^spnaiji 
while  still  another  was  Mgr.  Dupanloup  of  Orleans,  who,  at  83  ' 
this  time,  published  his  book  "De  la  Pacification  Religieuse." 
Both  of  these  men  found  their  group  of  sympathizers.  But, 
to  have  given  up  now,  would  have  been  to  lose  the  struggle 
at  the  very  moment  when  they  were  nearest  their  goal,  and, 
happily,  Montalembert  and  his  party  realized  this  fact.  Never- 

19  "On  sait  ce  que  les  Neo-Catholiques  entendent  par  la  liberte  religi- 
euse c'est  particulierement,  en  attendant  mieux  la  destruction  de  l'Uni- 
versite,  qu'ils  apellent  le  monopole,  l'accroissement  des  privileges  dont 
jouissent  deja  les  petits  seminaires,  la  multiplication  indefinie  des  col- 
leges ecclesiastiques  jouissant  d'une  liberte  sans  autre  limite  que  celle 
qui  peut  venir  la  police  correctionnelle,  c'est  ainsi  l'abolition  des  articles 
du  concordat  qu'empechent  que  l'Eglise  devienne  un  Etat  dans  l'Etat." 
Constitutionnel,  5  Aout  1845. 


149 


theless  a  sort  of  truce  did  ensue  for  the  rest  of  the  year. 
In  this  brief  interval  several  important  changes  occurred, 
Louis  Yeuillot  retired  from  I'Univers  and  was  succeeded  by 
de  Coux  whose  name  had  frequently  appeared  in  the  early 
columns  of  VAvemr.  The  government,  too  seemed  desirous  of 
peace,  and  as  if  to  prove  the  sincerity  of  their  desire, 
Salvandy  suspended  Quinet's  course  at  the  College  de 
France.  Montalembert's  party,  however,  could  not  long  re- 
main inactive,  and  at  the  end  of  a  year  they  were  arranging 
their  cohorts  for  a  final  struggle.  At  the  closing  of  the 
Chambers  their  leader  declared :  "We  await  you  next  year 
on  the  same  ground."17 

The  year  1846,  however,  witnessed  a  renewal  of  the  con- 
troversy, and  many  of  those  who  had  declared  for  peace 
re-entered  the  field.    It  was  a  significant  year  for  the  nation 
and  for  the  "Neo-Catholics"  as  well ;  France  broke  with  Eng- 
land and  by  that  act  definitely  asserted  her  return  to  the 
principles  of  Metternich  and  the  Holy  Alliance,  while  the 
"Neo-Catholics"  won  the  last  step  in  their  triumphant  pro- 
gress, a  step  which,  in  fact,  predicted  and  assured  the  victory. 
The  prize  was  won  in  1846,  but  for  the  reward  they  had  to 
wait  till  the  beginning  of  1850,  when  the  prize  was  presented 
Courier      to  them  by  the  leader  of  their  opponents. 
2    Fevrier       From  December  of  the  preceding  year  Montalembert's  party 
1846       had  seen  that  they  would  be  called  on  to  the  field  of  political 
controversy  at  an  early  date.    In  that  month  Salvandy  had 
S      h    f  ProPose^  ^is  ^aw  camn&  f°r  a  reorganization  of  the  "Conseil 
Monta-      Royal"  of  the  University.    Here,  some  thought,  was  a  definite 

lembert,  overture  on  the  part  of  the  government.  Would  Guizot 
Moniteur,  .  .  ^       .  ,      -  .  , 

10  Janv.,     come  over  to  them  after  all?    Certainly,  for  a  time,  it  did 

1846       seem  possible  that  an  alliance  might  spring  up  between  the 

two.     Early  in  January  Salvandy's  law  came  before  the 

Chambers  for  discussion.    It  proposed  to  substitute  for  the 

"Conseil  Royal"  a  University  Council  of  thirty  members, 

twenty  of  whom  should  be  appointed  each  year.    On  this 

Guizot  and  Thiers  again  found  themselves  face  to  face  and 

if  the  former  could  have  gained  the  support  of  the  "Neo- 

17  Montalembert,  closing  session  1845.    Quoted  Mrs.  Oliphant.  "Mon- 
talembert,"  II.  89. 


150 


Catholics"  he  might  have  succeeded  in  permanently  silencing 
his  rival.  But  the  law  was  not  acceptable  to  Montalembert 
and  his  colleagues  because  their  party  would  not  have  any 
guarantees  for  representation,  and  Guizot  was  again  discom- 
fited. The  opposition  took  heart  and  their  newspapers  even 
went  so  far  as  to  declare  the  University's  position  secure 
and  impregnable: 

'The  fact  is  that  the  blow  aimed  at  the  old  "Conseil  Royal" 
is  only  one  episode  in  the  great  debate  raging  for  two  years 
between  secular  and  ecclesiastical  power,  between  the  Uni- 
versity and  the  clergy.  Perhaps  the  time  has  not  yet  come 
to  settle  this  important  question.  The  Chamber,  wishing  to 
reserve  to  itself  the  sole  right  of  decision,  is  studying  the 
question  and  hesitates  to  announce  any  decision." 

The  Journal  des  Debats  and  the  Universitaires  were  bitterly 
deceived !  Three  weeks  later  the  Chamber  of  Deputies,  led  by 
Berryer,  announced  its  decision  to  go  still  further  and  help 
the  Church. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  a  vote  had  not  even  been  taken  on 
Thiers'  report  of  Villemain's  law,  The  21st  of  February,  the 
opposition,  thinking  to  discountenance  Guizot  still  more,  pro- 
posed that  the  discussion  and  vote  on  Villemain's  law  be 
made  the  "order  of  the  day."  This  Guizot,  as  Premier,  re- 
fused to  allow.  It  was  then  that  one  of  the  "Neo-Catholics" 
made  a  brilliant  move  taking  the  Chamber  entirely  by  sur- 
prise. He  informed  Guizot  that  a  refusal  to  submit  the 
law  to  discussion  and  vote,  was  equal  to  its  withdrawal,  and 
asked  him  if  this  implied  a  promise  on  the  part  of  the  govern- 
ment, of  a  new  law.  To  the  astonishment  of  everyone  present 
M.  Guizot  affirmed  this  statement.18    This  was  the  "conversa- 

w  Berryer:  "Mais  je  viens  d'entendre  que  le  projet  de  la  reprise  de 
la  loi  etait  une  forme  de  retrait  d'une  loi  que  je  regarde  comme  mau- 
vaise;  c'est  un  retrait  auquel  on  veut  faire  acquiescer  la  Chambre,  par 
la  deliberation  de  ce  moment;  et  ce  n'est  pas  seulement  un  retrait, 
c'est  la  promesse  de  nous  apporter  une  loi  basee  sur  des  principes  et 
droits  de  l'Etat  en  matiere  de  l'enseignement  public,  d'accomplir  la 
liberte  de  conscience  et  la  liberte  d'enseignement,  le  retrait  d'une  loi  qui 
doit  etre  conque  dans  les  idees  plus  generenses  et  fondee  sur  des 
doctrines  plus  liberates,  me  determinent  a  participer  au  rejet  de  la 
proposition  de  reprise." 

Guizot  replied  :    "Le  projet  de  loi  que  la  chambre  auront  a  discuter 

151 


tion  tres  vive,  tres  piquante"  that  took  place  in  the  Chamber 

of  Deputies.    The  promise  of  a  law  more  liberally  conceived 

and  more  in  accordance  with  the  69th  Article  of  the  Charter 

was,  indeed,  a  cause  of  encouragement  to  the  "Neo-Cath- 

olics."    The  following  day  the  dissolution  of  the  Chambers 

v .  I 1  mvers,  was  pronounced  for  July  6th,  and  new  elections  were  called 
No.  11,  15,    .      *  ■ 
Mars,  etc.,    for  August  ist. 

1846;  Strengthened  by  this  check  to  the  cause  of  the  University, 

the  Committee  for  the  Defense  of  Religious  Liberty  set  to 

also  Mon     wor^  to  prepare  for  the  coming  elections.    The  columns  of 

talembert,    L'Univers  were  filled  with  advice  to  the  Catholic  electors 

^Catho^65  anc*  wlt^  persuasive  arguments  for  the  uncertain.    In  the 

liques  dans    midst  of  all  this  excitement,  however,  L'Univers  did  not 

les  pro-  forget  its  fellow-sufferers  in  other  lands,  and  frequently  made 
chaines  &  ^  J 

elections     eloquent  appeals  for  the  Poles  and  the  Irish.19    At  the  same 

time  that  the  committee  seemed  to  be  gaining  the  fruits  of  its 
Corre-      labour,  the  favourable  attitude  of  the  government  and  a  shifting 
spondant,  10  of  position  on  the  part  of  the  various  political  parties  gave 
Juillet.  1846  t|ie  "Neo_Catholics"  cause  for  hope.   A  change  was  apparently 
coming  over  the  field  of  political  controversy.    Thiers'  Re- 
publicans and  some  of  the  Legitimists  were  coming  together. 
The  milder  Republicans  and  Moderate  Legitimists,  on  the 
other  hand,  seemed  to  favour  the  "Neo-Catholics,"  while  the 
attitude  of  the  ministry  led  the  few  supporters  of  the  gov- 
ernment to  the  side  of  L'Univers.    The  "Neo-Catholics"  posi- 
tion seemed  infinitely  bettered ;  already  the  University  seemed 
defeated.20    But  still  another  incident  gained  great  numbers 

»era  en  harmonie  avec  ces  idees;  il  se  proposera  de  maintenir  les 
droits  de  l'Etat  en  matiere  de  l'enseignement  public,  d'accomplir  les 
promesse  de  la  charte  en  matiere  de  la  liberte  de  l'enseignement,  et 
de  constituer  le  gouvernement  supreme  de  l'instruction  publique,  de 
telle  sorte  qu'il  reponde  a  ces  deux  buts."   L'Unirers,  22  Fevr.  1846. 

19  As  early  as  1830-1834  O'Connell  visited  them.  On  his  death,  funeral 
services  were  held  for  him  all  over  France.  Lacordaire  pronounced 
his  funeral  oration  at  Notre  Dame  in  the  presence  of  many  of  the 
high  officials — ecclesiastical  and  secular — of  the  realm. 

""Aujour  dhui,  les  repugnances  qu'ils  soulevaient  naguere  se  sont  en 
grande  partie  calmee;  demain  l'opinion  publique  plus  eclaircie,  se  pro» 
noncera  en  faveur  de  la  liberte  religieuse  et  de  la  liberte  d'enseigne- 
ment."    Courrier  Francais,  22  Juillet  1846. 


152 


for  the  government  and  Montalembert's  party  as  well ;  on  the 
30th  day  of  August,  forty-eight  hours  before  the  vote,  another 
attempt  was  made  on  the  life  of  the  king.  The  result  was  a 
frightened  reversal  of  opinion  favoring  a  conservative  policy. 
Louis  Philippe  assassinated,  a  Regency  and  a  liberal  majority, 
what  might  France  become!  The  bourgeois  shuddered  at  the 
thought;  as  a  result,  Guizot  and  Montalembert  came  out  of 
the  elections  stronger  than  ever.  For  the  "Neo-Catholics'' 
it  was  indeed  a  ''true  and  legitimate  success.''  Of  the  226 
candidates  avowedly  for  religious  liberty,  146  were  elected. 
A  new  era  seemed  to  be  opening  for  the  "Neo-Catholics" ; 
soon  they  would  not  have  to  fight  their  battles  alone.  The 
government  strengthened  by  the  elections  might  come  to  their 
assistance ;  if  not,  they  were  now  a  considerable  body,  their 
numbers  and  their  influence  would  cause  them  to  be  reckoned 
with,  they  could  find  support  elsewhere.  After  sixteen  years 
of  struggle  the  "Neo-Catholics"  were  at  last  an  "embarras 
parlementaire."  They  had  finally  gained  the  position  their 
leader  had  told  them  they  must  attain ;  now  they  would  not 
be  deceived  in  their  prophecies. 

One  of  the  most  significant  phases  of  the  elections  had 
been  the  arrival  on  the  scene  of  M.  de  Falloux,  the  author  of 
Law  Falloux  (1850).  Still  another  important  incident  was 
the  change  in  the  personnel  and  attitude  of  the  Papacy.  Greg- 
ory XVI  had  died,  and  Pius  IX  "Gioberti's  Pope"  was  elected. 
For  two  years  Rome  enjoyed  a  policy  of  Liberalism.  For  the 
"Neo-Catholics"  this  change  in  papal  policy  meant  much; 
it  did  indeed  seem  as  if  the  fulfilment  of  their  wishes  was 
near  at  hand.21  An  "embarras  parlementaire,"  a  liberal  Pope 
was  in  the  throne — so  great  was  their  gain  that  even  when  he 
had  gone  over  to  the  reactionaires  they  were  able  to  hold 
fast  to  the  new  position  attained  in  the  political  world. 

A  really  astounding  state  of  affairs  followed  after  the 
elections, — a  period  of  agreement  between  King,  Pope  and 
the  "Neo-Catholics."  The  chambers  even  flattered  the  new 
Pontif.22    The  government  and  L'Umvers  were  at  one  in 


v.  Henri  de 
Riancey. 
"Compte 

Render  des 
Elections" 
de  1846 


21  "Xul  Pape  n'a  plus  fait  que  Pius  IX  pour  que  l'unit  catholique  devint 
une  vivante  et  puissante  realite."  Spuller  Evolution  Politique  de 
l'Eglise,  ch.  XV. 

22  v.  La  Patrie,  20  Juin  1846.    I'Univers,  21  Juin  1846.  Moniteur 


153 


regard  to  the  policy  of  breaking  the  English  Alliance  and 
the  steps  to  be  taken  concerning  Switzerland,  and  finally,  it  was 
announced  that  the  law  promised  in  1846  would  soon  appear. 
A  year  later  Salvandy  proposed  his  law.  While  it  upheld  in 
principle  the  right  of  families,  it  still  maintained  the  require- 
ment of  a  University  certificate  of  ability,  for  all  instructors 
and  professors.  It  was  verbose  and  deceiving.  The  only  con- 
cession the  "Neo-Catholics"  had  obtained  from  the  government 
was  the  omission  of  the  clause  prohibiting  orders  from  teach- 
ing. The  "Neo-Catholics"  were  furious,  and  justly  so,  at  the 
government ;  they  felt  they  had  again  been  betrayed,  but 
the  government  could  do  no  more,  it  was  already  in  its  death 
throes.  Disgusted,  the  Church  party  turned  to  its  new  allies, 
the  Moderate  Republicans.23  The  Teste  scandal  and  the 
suppression  of  the  Chapter  of  St.  Denis  sealed  this  alliance: 
Guizot  had  lost  them  forever.24  Still  others  joined  them  when 
the  government  became  embroiled  in  the  affair  of  the  Baptists, 
and  even  their  old  enemy  VAmi  de  la  Religion  et  du  roi 
rapidly  cast  aside  the  barriers  between  them  and  finally  lent 
its  voice  to  the  "Neo-Catholics' "  demand  for  the  liberties  of 
Italy,  Poland  and  Ireland.25  The  threats  made  against  the 
church  at  the  Reform  Banquets  only  tended  to  heighten  their 
mutual  hatred  of  a  government  that  did  not  dare  to  put  down 
"the  turn-coat  liberals."26  The  February  days  came  and  the 
Revolution  followed.  In  that  troublesome  time  Frenchmen 
found  that  one  institution  alone  remained  stable  and  they  fled 
to  it  in  utter  despair.    The  church  was  no  longer  despised. 

A  Republic  was  established,  with  Louis  Napoleon  as  Presi- 
dent. Meanwhile  Montalembert  had  found  a  confrere  in 
arms — the  abbe  Dupanloup,  whose  entrance  into  the  field  of 
political  controversy  had  been  prepared  by  his  book  "De  la 
Pacification  Religieuse"  written  four  years  before.    As  soon 

Janv.  1848.  I'Univcrs,  v.  nos.  4-9,  Sept.  9  ct  1846,  2  Juil,  13,  Oct. 
10  and  14,  Nov.  1847,  15  Janv.  1848. 

23  v.  Thiers  et  loi  Falloux,  L.  Barthou  8.  v.  I'Univcrs,  15  Avril  1849- 

24  v.  Debidour  "E  et  E"  447-8.    v.  VUnivers,  15  Avril  1847. 
These  three  cases  all  concerned  the  question  of  religious  liberty 

and  were  decided  by  the  government  in  a  spirit  contrary  to  the  wishes 
of  the  Liberal  Catholics. 

25  v.  Ami  de  la  Religion  et  \du  roi,  9  Oct.  1847. 
aev.  ibid,  No.  13,  Dec.  1847. 

154 


as  the  affairs  of  the  Second  Republic  were  settled,  Mon- 
talembert,  Thiers  and  Cousin  were  set  to  work  on  a  law  for 
the  liberty  of  public  instruction.  This  was  a  strange  partner- 
ship. Thiers  said  he  had  been  converted  to  the  cause  by 
the  social  revolution,27  while  Cousin  had  renounced  the  greater 
part  of  his  philosophy.  Early  in  the  year  1850  the  famous 
"loi  Falloux"  was  proposed.28  The  debate  opened  in  the 
"Chambre  Constituante"  on  the  fourteenth  of  January.  In 
the  meantime  many  events  had  made  the  government  favor- 
able to  the  law;  a  large  number  of  the  clergy  had  joined 
the  Moderate  Republican  party  and  were  become  its  back- 
bone, and  Louis  Napoleon,  too,  needed  the  support  of  the 
church.  The  June  Days  had  clearly  shown  him  this  fact, 
and  his  expedition  to  Rome  had  been  but  a  prelude  to  what 
the  government  was  to  grant.  Beugnot  reported  the  law, 
Thiers  and  Montalembert  defended  it,29  but  it  was  not  without 
a  hard  fight  that  the  proposed  law  was  finally  passed  (March 
15,  1850.)  The  "Monopole  Universitaire"  was  destroyed; 
a  ''letter  of  obedience"  from  the  bishops  was  to  take  the 
place  of  a  "brevet  de  capacite"  from  the  University,  for  those 
instructors  who  belonged  to  religious  orders.  Entire  freedom 
was  allowed  to  private  instruction.  The  only  thing  required 
was  a  formal  certificate  of  morality  and  ability.  The  Council 
of  the  University  was  replaced  by  a  "Conseil  superieur  de 
l'instruction  publique"  composed  of  clergy,  magistrates  and 
representatives  from  private  institutions.  In  brief,  the  clergy 
gained  a  double  advantage  in  that  they  obtained  not  only 
the  right  to  establish  their  own  independent  institutions,  but 

27  Quant  a  la  liberte  d'  enseignement,  je  suis  change.  Je  le  suis  non 
par  une  revolution  dans  mes  convictions  mais  par  une  revolution  dans 
l'etat  social.  Je  porte  ma  haine  et  ma  chaleur  la  ou  aujourd'hui 
est  l'ennemi.  Cet  enemmi  c'est  la  demagogie,  et  je  ne  lui  livrerai  pas 
le  dernier  debris  de  l'ordre  social,  c'est  a  dire  l'e'etablissement  catho- 
lique."  Thiers  to  de  Montjau  Ami  de  la  Religion  et  du  roi,  18 
Juin  1848. 

28  "La  loi  Falloux,  comme  on  l'appelle,  pourrait  s'appeler  aussi  la  loi 
Thiers."  Henri  de  Lacombe  Proces  verbaux  de  la  commission  de  la 
loi  Falloux. 

29  For  the  relationship  of  Thiers  and  Montalembert,  v.  Lecaunet — 
"Montalembert"  II,  390-5. 


155 


also  the  right  of  sharing  in  the  directing  of  the  instruction 
given  in  the  public  schools. 

The  fundamental  cause  of  this  striking  victory,  gained  by 
the  "Neo-Catholics"  in  1850  after  their  long  struggle  under 
Louis  Philippe,  is  found  in  the  opening  lines  of  an  early 
prophecy  made  by  Montalembert,  a  prophecy  that  seemed, 
for  the  moment,  to  have  been  fulfilled:  "Dans  un  temps 
ou  nul  ne  sait  que  faire  de  sa  vie,  ou  nulle  cause  ne  reclame 
ni  merite  ce  devouement  qui  retombaient  naguere  comme  un 
poids  ecrasant  sur  nos  coeurs  vides,  nous  avons  enfin  trouve 
une  cause  qui  ne  vit  que  de  devouement  et  de  foi.  Quand 
notre  poussiere  sera  melee  a  celle  de  nos  peres,  le  monde 
adorera  ce  que  nous  portons  deja  avec  amour  dans  nos  ames, 
devant  cette  beaute  qui  a  tout  le  prestige  de  Tantiquite  et 
tout  le  charme  de  la  jeunesse,  cette  puissance  qui  apres  avoir 
fonde  le  passe  de  l'homme,  fecondera  tous  les  siecles  futurs, 
cette  consolation  qui  peut  seule  reconcilier  Thomme  a  la  vie, 
la  terre  au  ciel,  cette  double  et  sublime  destinee;  le  monde 
regenere  par  Dieu." 

The  very  heart  of  La  Mennais  is  found  in  this  eloquent  pro- 
phecy uttered  by  his  disciple,  but  in  1850  the  prophecy  was  only 
half  fulfilled.  The  Neo-Catholics  had  fought  a  good  fight  and 
had  won.  Here  was  the  golden  opportunity  for  which  they  had 
so  valiantly  struggled.  Although  the  moment  was  at  hand,  the 
opportunity  seized  and  measures  set  in  operation  to  begin  their 
noble  work  unhindered  now  by  a  vacillating  government,  or 
by  a  Voltarian  opposition,  nevertheless  they  failed.  And 
why?  Because  at  the  very  moment  of  reward,  the  church 
suddenly  again  dominated  by  an  over-ambitious  faction,  allied 
itself  with  the  temporal  power,  and  the  results  were  not 
the  happy  ones  foreseen  by  the  men  who  had  brought  her 
this  rich  gift.  In  view  of  the  final  outcome,  it  is  hard 
to  avoid  the  final  conclusion  that  to  many  who  supported  it, 
the  "loi  Falloux"  was  only  a  step  toward  the  ''Coup  d'fLtat," 
but  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  "Young  Catholics,"  now 
veterans  in  the  Chamber,  were  aware  of  this  at  the  time. 

The  vision  of  Montalembert  fades,  but  not  forever.  It 
has  never  entirely  disappeared.  From  time  to  time  there  have 
been  moments  when  an  opening  in  the  dark  cloud  hanging 

156 


over  Christianity  in  the  Nineteenth  Century  has  shown  that 
there  is  still  the  spirit  there,  that  it  has  not  died  out.  Such 
examples  are  found  in  the  subsequent  history  of  the  Church 
in  France,  the  later  life  of  Mgr.  Afire,  for  instance.  This 
gives  to  many  the  hope  that  it  may  some  day  appear  in  all 
the  beauty  in  which  it  was  first  conceived  by  the  now  for- 
gotten and  disowned  La  Mennais,  by  the  young  knight  of 
the  Chamber  of  Peers,  and  by  the  saintly  Frederic  Ozanam. 
May  it  stand  forth  in  all  the  sublimity  of  its  first  birth, 
free  from  political  taint,  pure,  solemn,  obedient  and  command- 
ing. Only  then  will  the  prophecy  of  Montalembert  come 
true. 

Little  now  remains  to  be  done  except  to  follow  the  other 
institution  to  its  end.  One  attained  its  victory,  the  other 
was  to  fail. 

The  year  1845  was  an  important  epoch  for  the  July  Mon- 
archy in  that  it  saw  a  great  change  come  over  the  surface 
of  affairs  in  France.  It  witnessed  the  resignation  of  Thiers 
from  Guizot's  ministry,  and  the  beginnings  of  the  controversy 
incident  to  the  break  up  of  the  English  alliance — a  con- 
troversy of  which  the  differences  over  Tahiti  and  Morocco 
were  a  premonition.  These  episodes  were  indications  of  the 
intention  of  France  to  continue  her  former  colonial  policy 
in  the  Pacific  and  Mediterranean.  In  this  one  respect  she 
remained  consistent;  in  all  others  she  was  uncertain  and  at 
times  contradictory.  Thiers,  then,  weary  of  Guizot's  policy 
of  following  the  King's  dictation  and  seeing  an  opportunity 
to  become  the  leader  of  both  oppositions  in  the  Chamber  of 
Deputies,  by  means  of  the  question  about  public  instruction, 
resigned,  and  became  known  as  the  leader  of  the  Parlia- 
mentary Republicans  and  the  "Universitaires."  At  the  time 
of  his  resignation  the  Republicans  too,  had  experienced  a 
change,  otherwise,  it  is  probable  that  Thiers  never  could 
have  become  the  chief  of  a  particular  faction  of  the  Re- 
publican party.  A  division  had  taken  place  in  its  ranks, 
and  it  was  separated  into  two  groups;  the  one  holding  that 
a  mere  change  to  a  Republican  form  of  government  was  all 
that  was  necessary,  the  other  believing  that  a  social  reform 
was  the  only  solution  of  the  problem.    But  this  difference 


i57 


in  opinion  was  not  confined  to  the  members  of  the  Chambers, 
it  had  spread  to  the  Republican  electorate  as  well,  and,  fur- 
thermore, was  beginning  to  be  felt  in  the  other  parties. 
For  example,  there  was  no  longer  one  solid  Legitimist  Party, 
there  were  now  Extreme  and  Moderate  Legitimists.  Thus 
redivided  the  aspect  of  French  politics  becomes,  from  the 
point  of  view  of  parties,  more  complicated;  the  Moderate 
and  Extreme  Republicans,  the  Moderate  and  Extreme  Legiti- 
mists, the  Socialists  and  the  Government's  party,  a  small  and 
almost  insignificant  group  of  former  ''doctrinaires."  This 
period  of  political  transition  or  redivision  is  further  marked 
by  three  publications  which  had  a  considerable  effect  on  the 
reading  public :  Lamartine's  "Histoire  des  Girondins,"  a 
panegyric  of  the  Revolution;  La  Mennais'  "Livre  du  Peuple" 
a  religious  glorification  of  Socialism ;  and  Eugene  Sue's 
''Mysteres  de  Paris,"  an  hysterical  exposition  cti  the  existing 
social  conditions  and  a  condemnation  of  the  existing  social 
system. 

Despite  this  change  in  the  field  of  politics,  however,  the 
real  leaders  were  few  in  number  and  remained  the  same. 
As  in  1840,  they  were  Thiers  and  Guizot :  "il  n'y  a  plus  que 
deux  possibilites  politiques,  vous  ou  moi,"  the  latter  is  said 
Quoted      to  have  remarked  to  Thiers.    The  rivalry  then,  still  continued, 
BJ0JI^g2621S,    the  one  always  seeking  to  contradict  the  other.    Thiers  or 
Guizot?    That  became  the  entire  political  question  in  the 
last  three  years  of  Louis  Philippe's  reign.    For  the  rest  of 
the  year,  while  Thiers  was  occupied  in  attacking  the  min- 
istry's system  of  parliamentary  corruption,  and  preparing  as 
a  remedy  to  the  "pays  legal"  a  plan  of  electoral  reform, 
Guizot  was  making  promises  to  the  Catholics,  showing  him- 
self favorable  to  their  cause  in  all  its  phases  and  seeking 
to  join  their  cause  to  his  own  in  the  forthcoming  elections. 
So  much  for  the  internal  political  occupations  of  France ; 
in  the  field  of  external  politics  there  was  much  less  petty 
policy,  the  break  in  the  English  Alliance  was  approaching. 
The  first  sign  of  this  change  is  found  in  the  visit  of  the 
McCarthy,    Emperor  Nicholas  to  England  the  latter  part  of  the  year 
Hist.,  I,  443  1844.    The  two  countries,  England  and  Russia,  after  all,  had 


158 


much  in  common.  In  the  first  place  two  were  far  better 
than  three  in  the  East.  Russia  could  not  be  dislodged,  and 
it  became  a  question  of  England  or  France.  Here  was  ^y^^' 
England's  opportunity  to  assure  her  eastern  policy.  For  the 
English  the  situation  seemed  to  resolve  itself  into  a  choice 
between  the  Kingdoms  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  and 
the  British  Empire.  Allied  with  France,  England  would 
never  have  become  an  Empire.  This  was  the  first  and  great- 
est reason  for  the  break.  The  other  two  causes  are  not  of  v.  VUnivers, 
such  importance ;  the  one  was  a  matter  of  sympathy,  the  ^^44  ' 
religious  policy  of  England  in  Ireland  and  of  Russia  in 
Poland  was  somewhat  similar,  while  the  other  was  a  question 
of  commercial  rivalry  between  France  and  England.  For 
France,  on  the  other  hand,  there  were  three  forces  at  work 
to  break  the  alliance.  The  one,  as  has  been  noted,  was 
economic,  but  as  the  existing  government  seemed  to  hold 
such  matters  in  low  esteem  it  was  not,  though  it  should  have 
been,  of  the  greatest  importance.  The  two  prime  factors  for 
France,  then,  were  the  "Neo-Catholics"  and  the  influence 
of  Metternich.  v>  im  also 

The  "Neo-Catholics"  favoured  a  break  with  England  from  2,  8  Janv., 
principle  rather  than  from  policy,  though  they  did  admit,  *^45 
as  we  have  seen,  the  commercial  disadvantages  of  the  entente. 
But  in  their  eyes  the  most  important  reasons  were  two  in 
number,  England  was  Protestant,  and  the  English  govern- 
ment had  opposed  the  "martyred"  O'Connell.  And,  as  the 
French  ministry  and  government  approached  nearer  and 
nearer  the  "Neo-Catholics,"  for  the  elections  were  not  now 
far  off,  their  policy  must  needs  have  conformed  at  least 
temporarily  to  the  desires  of  their  new  ally. 

The  most  potent  influence,  however,  was  that  of  Metter- 
nich.   France  under  Louis  Philippe  became  at  this  time  the  d'Haus- 
dupe  of  Metternich.    The  wily  diplomat  tempted  the  king  H^st^Dipl. 
with  the  prospect  of  restoring  the  ancient  dynastic  glories  of  T. 
the  Bourbans  if  the  King  of  the  July  Monarchy  would  but 
conform  to  the  principles  of  the  Holy  Alliance.    He  desired  Debidour, 
to  transform  "cette  detestable  boutique,"  as  he  is  said  to  critiques 
have  called  the  July  Government.    His  method  was  most  348 


159 


Bourgeois, 
HI,  355-6 


v.  Letter  of 
Louis 
Philippe 
to  the 
Queen  of 
the  Bel- 
gians, 14 
Sept.,  1846 

Revue 
Retro., 
No.  22 


Jesuitical.  Ever  so  slowly  Metternich  had  won  Louis  Philippe 
from  the  British  Alliance — at  first  by  the  Mehemet-Ali  epi- 
sode, then  by  the  right  of  search  controversy,  later  by  the 
policy  in  Tahiti  and  Morocco,  and  again  by  the  "affaire 
Pritchard."  But,  -above  all,  the  advice  of  Metternich  to 
obliterate  his  revolutionary  origin  by  a  reversion  to  a  far  too 
old  tradition  of  dynastic  glory  was  what  appealed  most  to  the 
mind  of  the  old  king,  and  this,  he  saw,  could  only  be  accom- 
plished by  a  rupture  with  England.  Both  governments,  then 
awaited  the  opportunity  to  break  the  bonds  of  the  Quadruple 
Alliance.  In  1845,  tne  occasion  presented  itself  in  the 
Spanish  Marriage  controversy.  Isabella  of  Spain  and  her 
sister,  the  Infanta  Louisa  Fernanda  were  both  unmarried. 
As  early  as  1841  it  had  been  agreed  by  England  and  France 
that  Louis  Philippe's  son  should  marry  the  Infanta  Louisa, 
but  not  until  the  Queen  of  Spain  had  found  and  married  a 
husband.  Suddenly  in  1846,  the  French  Ambassador  suggested 
to  Queen  Isabella's  mother  Maria  Christina,  that  the  due  de 
Montpensier  be  married  to  the  Infanta  at  the  same  time  that 
the  Queen's  nuptials  were  celebrated,  and  he  suggested  as  a 
likely  candidate  for  the  Queen's  hand,  Don  Francisco  of  Assis, 
due  de  Cadiz,  who  was  known  to  be  physically  unfit  for 
marriage.  England  at  once  protested,  and  this  protest  was 
rendered  all  the  more  significant  by  the  return  of  Palmerston, 
the  friend  of  Thiers,  to  power.  He  did  not  have,  of  course, 
the  slightest  sympathy  with  the  policy  of  Guizot.  England 
then  proceeded  to  nominate  a  Coburg.  To  this  Guizot  ob- 
jected on  the  ground  that  it  was  contrary  to  the  agreement 
of  1841.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  French  themselves 
do  not  seem  to  have  favoured  this  policy.  Some  feared  the 
second  isolation  of  France  from  a  European  Concert,  and 
others  the  responsibilities  such  a  marriage  would  impose  upon 
the  country.  In  spite  of  the  prevailing  public  opinions  both 
in  France  and  England,  however,  Louis  Philippe  continued 
his  course,  and  on  the  tenth  of  October  1846,  the  marriages 
were  solemnized.  England  was  deeply  hurt  and  cordial  re- 
lations between  the  two  countries  were  suspended,  England 
claiming  that  Louis  Philippe  had  been  guided  simply  by 


160 


dynastic  ambitions.31  32  33  The  entire  affair  seems  to  have  been 
carried  on  from  a  selfish  point  of  view  and  without  any 
inquiries  as  to  the  wishes  and  desires  of  the  British  and 

31  The  following  letters  furnish  interesting  comments  on  the  break: 
"a  S.  M.  La  Reine  de  la  Grande  Bretagne,  8  Sept.  1846.  Madame : 
Confiante  de  cette  amitie  dont  V.  M.  a  donne  tant  de  preuves,  et  dans 
l'aimable  interet  que  vous  avez  toujours  temoigne  a  tous  nos  enfants ; 
je  m'empresse  de  vous  annoncer  le  mariage  de  notre  fils  Montpensier 
avec  l'lnfante  Louise-Fernande,  Cet  evenement  de  famille  nous  comble 
de  joie,  parce  que  j'espere  qu'il  assure  le  bonheur  de  notre  fils  cheri 
et  que  nous  retrouverons  dans  l'lnfante  une  nouvelle  fille  aussi  bonne, 
aussi  aimable  que  ses  ainees,  et  qui  ajoutera  a  notre  bonheur  interieure, 
le  seul  vrai  de  ce  monde,  et  que  vous  meme  savez  si  bien  apprecier. 
Je  vais  demander  d'avance  votre  amitie  pour  notre  nouvelle  enfant, 
sure  qu'elle  partagera  tous  les  sentiments  de  devouement  et  d'affection 
de  nous  tous  pour  vous,  pour  le  prince  Albert  et  pour  toute  votre 
chere  famille.  Je  suis,  Madame,  de  V.  M.  la  toute  devouee  soeur  et 
amie.     Marie  Amelie. 

a.  s.  M.  la  Reine  des  Frangois,  Osborn,  10  Sept.  1846. 

Madame :  Je  viens  de  recevoir  la  lettre  de  V.  M.  du  8  de  ce  mois, 
et  m'empresse  de  vous  en  remercier.  Vous  vous  souviendriez  peutetre 
de  ce  qui  s'est  passe  a  Eu  entre  le  roi  et  moi.  Vous  connaissez 
1'importance  que  j'ai  toujours  attache  au  maintien  de  notre  entente 
cordiale  et  las  zele  avec  laquelle  jy  ai  travaille;  vous  avez  apris  sans 
doute  que  nous  nous  sommes  refusee  d'arranger  le  mariage  entre 
la  reine  de  Espagne  et  notre  cousin  Leopold  que  les  deux  reines 
avaient  desire  vivement,  dans  le  seul  but  de  ne  pas  nous  eloigner 
d'une  marche  qui  serait  plus  agreable  au  roi,  quoique  nous  ne 
pouvons  considerer  cette  marche  comme  la  meilleure.  Vous  pouvez 
done  aisement  comprendre  que  l'annonce  de  ces  doubles  mariages  ne 
pouvait  nous  causer  que  de  la  surprise  et  un  bien  vif  regret.  Je 
vous  demande  pardon,  Madame  de  vous  parler  de  la  politique  a  ce 
moment,  mais  j'aime  pouvoir  me  dire  que  j'ai  toujours  ete  sincere 
avec  vous.    Je  vous  prie,  etc.    Victoria  R. 

Revue  Retrospective — No.  8. 

32  v.  Aberdeen's  letter  to  Guizot  Sept.  14,  1846,  in  which  he  tells 
of  the  general  regret  in  England.    Rev.  Retros.  Xo.  20. 

33  "Le  due  de  Cadiz  ne  donne  aucun  appui  au  governement  espagnol : 
Non  seulement  ceux  qui  paraissaient  le  preferer  sont  peu  redoubtables, 
mais  encore  ils  ne  le  suivront  point.  Les  partisans  du  Comte  de 
Montemoulin  seraient  devenus,  au  contraire,  les  defensers  les  plus 
zeles,  et  les  plus  surs  du  trone  d'Isabelle.  .  .  .  Dans  ces  conditions 
nous  ne  pouvons  applaudir  au  mariaige  du  due  de  Montpensier  avec 
l'lnfanta  dona  Louisa."  I'Univers,  14  Sept.  1846.  v.  also  Journal  des 
Debats,  16  Oct.  1846.    Constitutionnel,  15  Sept.  1846. 


161 


v.  Chap.  I 

Le  Goff, 
116  et  seq 
I'Univers, 

ii  Nov., 
1846 


v.  Constitu- 

tionnel, 
Nos.  Dec, 

1847 
National, 
Dec,  1847 


I'Univers, 
14  Nov,  10 
Dec,  1847 
Ami  de  la 
Rel.  et  du 

roi,  15 
Janv.,  1848, 
19  Fev.,  1848 

P.  B.  St. 
John,  p.  10 


French  people.  The  general  opinion  in  France  was  one  of 
disgust  and  keen  anxiety  for  the  future.  The  Spanish  mar- 
riages would  prove  a  heavy  burden.  The  Oppusition  did  not 
hesitate  to  voice  their  protest  in  the  Chambers.  In  another 
country,  however,  there  was  joy:  Metternich's  point  had  been 
gained,  the  transformation  of  the  July  Monarchy  was 
completed. 

The  result  of  this  policy  for  Louis  Philippe  and  his  dynasty 
is  important.  The  last  of  the  original  bases  on  which  the 
monarchy  had  been  founded,  and  on  which  alone  the  bour- 
geoisie had  guaranteed  its  existence,  had  been  knocked  from 
under  it.  Louis  Philippe  had  now  accepted  the  principles  of 
the  Holy  Alliance,  the  monarchy  had  no  longer  a  "raison 
d'etre."  Placed  between  two  fires,  the  old  School  and  the 
Revolution,  embodied  in  the  Radicals,  what  could  the  July 
Monarchy  do  but  turn  to  the  old?  Louis  Philippe  had  been 
the  dupe,  he  now  became  the  accomplice  of  Metternich.  "Con- 
tradictions destroy  themselves,"  cried  one  politician.  Before, 
the  king  had  sacrificed  everything  for  the  English  Alliance, 
now  he  had  thrown  that  alliance  over;  what  remained? 

The  government,  though  temporarily  strengthened  by  the 
elections  of  1846,  compromised  this  newly  gained  force  by  a 
foreign  policy  absolutely  contrary  to  the  wishes  of  many  of  the 
people.  Within  its  borders  there  was  a  financial  crisis  and 
a  terrific  upheaval  in  the  business  world,  while  outside  of 
France  another  revolution  occurred.  The  ministry  sought  to 
appease  the  one  by  a  foolish  and  heavy  system  of  taxation,3* 
while  for  the  other,  it  sided  with  Metternich.  Civil  War  had 
broken  out  in  Switzerland.  Its  cause  was  religious,  it  was 
almost  a  repetition  of  the  Reformation  except  that  it  lacked 
the  character  of  a  "Pope  at  Geneva."  The  country  desired 
and  finally  demanded  that  troops  be  sent  to  protect  the 
borders.  All  were  unanimous  in  this  request,  but  some,  for 
example  the  "Neo  Catholics,"  for  an  entirely  different  reason. 
They  desired  the  protection  of  the  Jesuits  to  whom  many 
had  ascribed  the  blame  of  the  rebellion.  An  army  was  sent 
to  the  borders  and  then  its  purpose  was  declared.    It  was  to 


The  cinq  per  cent  affair,   v.  Rev.  Retros.  Nos.  18-22. 


162 


protect  Jesuits!  The  cause  of  this  policy  is  clear:  France  D|^°^r 
internally  was  in  a  terrible  condition,  economic  crises  had  Critiques, 
made  the  people  call  all  the  louder  for  electoral  reform  in  P-  35i 
order  to  correct  the  abuses  of  the  government.  In  France, 
then,  the  government  had  need  of  support,  and  in  acting 
in  Switzerland  as  they  did  they  were  but  trying  to  win  the 
good  graces  of  the  new  party  so  recently  become  an  "embarras 
parlementaire" — and  also  the  remaining  Conservatives  who  had 
joined  the  "Neo-Catholics"  and  who  still  believed  in  the 
Monarchical  Principle.  This  internal  support,  in  turn,  was 
not  sufficient;  they  needed  the  aid  of  the  Powers  as  well. 
Louis  Philippe  had  already  bent  to  the  Holy  Alliance,  what 
better  support  could  he  have  than  those  very  monarchs  who 
had  restored  his  cousin  to  the  throne?  And  so  it  was  that 
sacrificing  Poland,  forgetting  a  liberal  Pope,  and  his  liberal 
supporters  in  Italy,  the  government  joined  in  the  support  of 
the  Jesuits.  Thiers  and  the  Republicans  made  a  violent  pro- 
test; all  of  France  applauded  them.  The  Reform  Banquets 
became  more  popular;  Lamartine  and  Ledru-Rollin  no  longer 
bridled  their  tongues  when  proposing  a  "toast."  A  mammoth 
banquet  was  arranged  for  the  23rd  of  February.  This  date 
was  the  occasion  for  the  overthrow  of  Louis  Philippe  "A  bas 
Guizot" — "a  bas  le  roi  des  barricades,"  the  people  cried.  Noth- 
ing was  simpler — the  July  Monarchy  had  lost  all  raison  d'etre; 
on  the  24th  of  February  it  had  passed  into  the  pages  of 
liistory. 

It  was  a  year  of  Revolutions.  Early  in  the  month,  Italy 
again  shook  off  temporarily  the  Austrian  yoke,  and  a  few 
weeks  later  the  old  regime  at  Vienna  was  forcibly  discarded, 
never  to  return.35 

It  is  one  of  the  easiest  tasks  in  the  world  to  name  and 
present  a  long  list  of  reasons  for  the  failure  of  an  institution 
or  the  fall  of  a  dynasty;  it  is  not  always  so  simple  a  matter 

35  One  author  has  remarked :  "Ainsi  par  une  consequence  f atale 
de  leur  alliance  se  trouvaient  emportees  dans  une  meme  disgrace, 
le  roi  des  barricades  et  le  champion  des  trones  legitimes.  L'un 
apres  avoir  feint  de  servir  la  Revolution,  s'etait  ouvertement  retourne 
contre  elle,  l'autre  l'avait  meconnue  toute  sa  vie.  Unis  pour  la  combattre 
•et  n'ayant  pas  vaincu,  il  n'est  pas  etonnant  qu'ils  avaient  succombe 
ensemble."    Debidour,  "Etudes  Critiques,"  p.  353. 


163 


to  find  the  fundamental  reasons.  But  in  the  case  of  the 
July  Monarchy  the  task  is  not  so  difficult.  One  principal 
reason  is  found  in  the  Industrial  Revolution  sweeping  over 
the  world ;  machinery  could  save  men  from  hard  labour,  but 
it  could  not  provide  them  with  other  tasks.  Its  inventors, 
furthermore,  were  not  lawmakers,  and  therefore,  could  not 
prevent  the  misfortunes  it  would  temporarily  bring.  The  pro- 
fessional law-makers,  on  the  other  hand,  were  not  experienced 
enough  to  counteract  this  harm,  while  those  who  had  had 
experience  were  either  silenced  by  the  oversuspicious  bour- 
geoisie or  were  too  blinded  by  old  theories  to  perceive  an 
entirely  new  situation  manifestly  requiring  new  laws.  Still 
another  fundamental  cause,  closely  allied  to  the  economic  one, 
was  the  transition  the  "haute  bourgeoisie"  had  undergone. 
Unsuccessful  in  the  governing  of  the  country,  they  had  re^ 
turned  to  their  old  occupations,  but  in  a  different  sense,  for 
they  were  more  protected  by  the  government  and  aided  to  a 
considerable  extent  by  the  saving  invention  of  machinery. 
They  amassed  great  fortunes  and  became  a  new  aristocracy 
which  lacked  many  of  the  essential  elements  of  the  older, 
and  was  characterized  by  a  sort  of  jealousy  which  made  them 
ashamed  to  be  governed.  The  third  and  last  cause  is  found 
in  the  fact  that  the  Monarchy  had  not  lived  up  to  the  Charter 
it  had  accepted.  The  Monarchy  was  one  thing,  the  Charter 
quite  another.  It  is  only  necessary  to  turn  back  to  the  opening 
pages  of  Chapter  I  to  have  this  fact  clearly  illustrated.  What 
promises  of  the  Charter  had  the  July  Monarchy  fulfilled? 
It  came  into  life  upholding  that  great  but  vague  moral  prin- 
ciple of  the  Revolution — liberty.  This  principle  it  soon  dis- 
carded. The  very  Charter,  the  moral  principle,  then,  aban- 
doned, the  bases  of  its  structure  removed,  it  could  not  possibly 
have  stood  longer.  It  was  really  wonderful  that  the  July 
Monarchy  endured  as  long  as  it  did.  These,  then,  are  the 
principal  reasons  for  the  fall  of  the  July  Monarchy,  and 
of  these  reasons  the  first  and  most  important  is  the  misinter- 
pretation of  the  Charter.  The  proud  and  sanctimonious  "Doc- 
trinaires" had  continuously  refused  to  hear  the  words  of 
warning  given  them !  Two  brief  citations  from  pamphlets 
written  the  year  after  the  Revolution  of  July  show  more 


164 


clearly  than  anything  else  could  do,  the  fact  that  France  was 
in  exactly  the  same  position  constitutionally  in  the  February 
Days  1848  as  she  was  in  July  1830.  They  might  have  served 
as  well  for  the  later  period  as  for  the  earlier: 

"Let  us  tell  all  the  truth;  the  revolution  of  1830  was  not 
put  down  in  order  to  overthrow  the  dynasty  and  save  the 
Charter,  but  rather  it  sprang  from  an  equal  desire  to  over- 
throw both  the  charter  and  the  dynasty. 

"The  dynasty,  on  the  other  hand,  fell  because  from  1814  it 
regarded  the  charter  as  a  definite  and  complete  treaty  of  peace  prance  *sur 
when  in  reality  it  should  only  have  seen  in  it  the  preliminaries   les  verita- 
of  a  treaty  the  conclusion  of  which  common  interest  rendered  de^a^Rev.5 
necessary."  de  1830," 

How  true  this  is  of  Louis  Philippe  as  well,  for  what  other  lian>  lg3I 
purpose  did  the  Charter  ever  serve  under  him  than  that  of 
a  treaty  of  peace?  Its  noble  promise  of  liberties  and  new 
laws  were  kept  in  darkness  except  at  times  when  a  cloud  ap- 
peared on  the  political  horizon,  and  then  to  disperse  that  cloud, 
or  to  gain  adherents  to  counteract  the  opposition,  the  charter 
was  brought  forth  and  a  new  law  on  a  liberty  guaranteed 
therein  was  promised.  The  political  end  gained,  if  the  law 
appeared  at  all,  it  proved  a  grievous  disappointment — witness 
the  struggle  of  the  "Neo-Catholics"  for  liberty  of  instruction- 
how  often  were  they  made  the  dupes  of  the  charter  by  the 
false  promises  and  fair  words  of  the  government.  It  was 
the  same  with  the  Press  laws  and  Electoral  Reform.  The 
Charter,  then,  was  a  mockery,  it  might  as  well  never  have 
been  written.  Many  Frenchmen  of  the  February  Days  must 
have  concurred  in  the  wrords  written  by  one  of  their  fellow- 
citizens  seventeen  years  earlier : 

"Alas,  if  a  constitution  on  parchment  is  hard  to  write,  how 
much  more  difficult  is  it  to  erase — and  you  call  that  a  guarantee  ! 
But  when,  in  accordance  with  the  new  ideas,  you  have  sep- 
arated the  king  from  his  people  and  have  attributed  to  each 
one  his  own  particular  rights,  then  if  a  disagreement  arises 
between  them  as  to  the  exercises  of  their  rights,  who  will 
judge  the  case?  Where  will  you  find  the  supreme  authority? 
In  force,  evidently,  "Cetait  bien  la  peine  de  jurer  une 
charte  !"36 

30  "Avertissements  aux    Souverains    sur    les    dangers    actuels  de 
1'Europe,"  Cte  de  Jouffrey  1831. 

165 


Such  a  criticism  is  equally  applicable  to  the  end  of  Louis 
Philippe's  reign,  and  possibly  the  Liberal  Catholic  Movement 
of  1830-1848  is  the  most  striking  illustration  of  this  fact, 
as  a  brief  resume  will  show.  In  the  early  beginnings  the 
energies  of  the  movement  were  dispersed  in  so  many  direc- 
tions that  its  influence  was  more  negative  than  positive.  Still 
even  at  that  time  it  was  able  to  gain  a  tacit  victory  over  the 
government  (the  "Ecole  Libre"  Affair)  to  strengthen  the 
bond  between  Belgium  and  France,  and  together  with  the 
Republicans  to  form  a  large  enough  opposition  favoring  the 
Poles,  to  place  Louis  Philippe  in  an  embarrassing  position 
vis-a-vis  the  Tsar.  Again,  the  "Neo-Catholics"  were  powerful 
enough  to  arouse  the  newspapers  of  the  time  and  force  the 
French  government  to  join  in  their  opponents'  demand  for 
condemnation  at  Rome.  Here  their  first  effort  failed.  A 
few  years  later  we  find  them  gathering  together  their  dis- 
persed cohorts,  and  then  fighting  with  one  sole  object  in 
view — the  liberty  of  instruction.  They  were  sufficiently 
powerful  to  cause  the  defeat  of  one  law  (1841),  the  with- 
drawal of  another  (1844  and  1846),  allied  with  Rome  to 
give  the  government  a  moral  defeat  in  the  affair  of  the 
Jesuits  (1845),  and  then,  their  strength  increased  still  more, 
they  succeeded  in  arousing,  during  a  time  of  profound  poli- 
tical apathy,  a  larger  dissenting  vote  in  the  Chamber  of  Peers 
than  had  been  known  for  a  long  time  (1844-1845).  The 
year  1846  in  turn  was  to  be  the  test  for  the  "Neo-Catholics" — 
they  were  to  come  before  the  people — and  with  the  surprising- 
result  that  over  one-half  of  the  candidates  avowedly  in  their 
favour,  were  returned.  Thus  strengthened,  they  defeated  an- 
other law,  and  gained  the  object  for  which  they  had  fought, 
under  a  Republic.  As  has  been  said,  it  is  true,  this  object 
was  the  means  to  an  end,  of  which  the  "Neo-Catholics"  it 
seems,  were  for  the  most  part  ignorant.  But  among  the 
men  who  presented  them  with  this  reward  were  Thiers  and 
Cousin,  their  former  most  bitter  enemies.  So  much  for  the 
positive  influence  that  the  "Neo-Catholics"  exerted  under 
Louis  Philippe.  Such  a  career  renders  them  an  important 
factor  to  the  historian  of  France.  But  still  another  and 
greater  influence  the  church  exerted  through  the  prestige 


166 


gained  for  her  by  the  "Neo-Catholics,"  and  this  is  shown 
in  the  subsequent  policy  of  the  government  after  the  new 
party  had  become  more  powerful.  It  is  an  influence  partly 
negative,  partly  positive,  more  subtle,  and  consequently  more 
difficult  to  describe.  We  quote,  therefore,  as  proof  of  this 
influence,  the  existence  of  which  had  been  frequently  alluded 
to,  the  words  of  one  who  was  first  their  enemy  and  then  their 
friend,  Adolphe  Thiers : 

"If  I  were  to  write  the  history  of  this  reign,  I  should  divide 
it  into  two  parts,  the  first  from  1830-1840,  the  second  from 
1840  to  the  Revolution  of  1848;  and  I  should  say  that  the 
first  period  was  characterized  by  the  predominance  of  the 
protestant  and  liberal  spirit;  that  the  second  was  marked  by 
a  Catholic  influence  and  that  a  result  which  necessarily  fol- 
lowed, personal  royalty  now  became  more  prominent,  and 
there  was  a  tendency  to  substitute  the  monarch's  will  for  that 
of  the  country. 

"This  fact  showed  itself  in  the  marriages  of  the  family,  or 
its  attempts  at  marriages.  In  the  first  period,  Louis  Philippe 
gave  one  of  his  daughters  to  a  protestant  prince,  Leopold, 
who  after  a  revolution  became  King  of  Belgium ;  he  married 
the  heir  presumptive,  the  Duke  of  Orleans,  to  a  protestant 
princess,  and  he  had  great  hopes  of  being  able  to  win  for 
his  second  son,  the  Duke  of  Nemours,  the  hand  of  the  future 
Queen  of  England,  the  Princess  Victoria,  to  whom  had  been 
sent  the  prince's  portrait,  which  she  admired  too  much  to 
please  the  old  King  William  IV,  whose  preferences  were 
for  a  Coburg.  The  match  fell  through  because  of  the  Duke's 
unwillingness  to  change  his  religion.  This  all  occurred  dur- 
ing the  epoch  of  the  protestant  ministers,  Guizot,  Gasparin, 
Hunnaun  and  others,  not  to  speak  of  free-thinkers.  The 
Tuileries  was  hermetically  sealed  to  clerical  influences.  This 
lasted  so  long  as  there  were  hopes  of  the  celebration  of  the 
English  marriage.  But,  when  these  fell  to  the  ground,  the 
royal  father  turned  in  another  direction,  and  Catholic 
princesses  supplanted  protestant  princesses.  You  know  all 
about  the  affair  of  the  Spanish  marriages  into  which  Guizot 
entered  eagerly,  and  from  which  he  did  not  escape  without 
tarnishing  his  glory.  I  have  told  you  the  consequences,  ul- 
tramontane influences  entered  the  palace,  the  government  had 

167 


to  compound  with  Catholicism.  This  was  clearly  evident  in 
the  case  of  non-sectarian  education.  Another  consequence 
still,  which  I  have  pointed  out  to  you.  So  long  as  the  family 
considered  its  interests  to  be  on  the  protestant  side,  it  was 
more  liberal,  more  faithful  to  its  origin;  people  governed 
themselves,  and  were  allowed  to  govern  themselves,  but  from 
the  moment  that  Catholicism  got  the  upper  hand,  the  Bour- 
bon came  to  the  surface,  the  Duke  of  Orleans  was  forgotten. 
They  opposed  the  current  so  determinedly  that  it  increased 
by  resistance,  until  one  fine  day  it  became  a  torrent  and 
swept  all  into  the  abyss."37 

In  conclusion  an  explanation  is,  perhaps,  necessary  in 
answer  to  the  question  why  such  a  subject  has  been  selected. 
There  is  always  the  reason  of  interest,  but  that  is  only  justi- 
fiable when  substantiated  by  other  reasons  less  personal  and 
more  worthy  of  consideration.  In  this  instance,  however, 
the  reasons  seem  justifiable  and  the  grounds  for  this  belief 
are  two  in  number.  In  the  first  place  while  it  is  an  exaggera- 
tion to  say  that  religion  is  the  sole  key  to  history,  it  is  ai 
recognized  fact,  nevertheless,  that  religion  is  often  one  of 
several  necessary  keys  to  the  history  of  a  people.  For  it  is 
frequently,  consciously  or  unconsciously,  at  the  very  basis  of 
their  thoughts,  and  unless  we  know  their  thoughts  and  the 
fundamentals  as  well,  it  is  difficult  to  truly  explain  their 
actions.  This  is  particularly  true  of  the  people  of  Central 
Europe  where  for  so  many  centuries  the  Church  of  Rome 
held  a  dominating  position,  and  it  is  still  more  true  of  the 
Latin  races.  Many  historians  of  today  declare  that  to  un- 
derstand the  early  history  of  France,  one  must  have  a  com- 
plete comprehension  of  the  relation  of  the  political  and  re- 
ligious world.  But,  this  is  equally  true  of  the  history  of 
the  nineteenth  century.  Henry  IV  and  the  Edict  of  Nantes 
are  absolutely  essential  to  the  understanding  of  the  later 
Reformation  and  so  also  are  the  Civil  Constitution,  the  various 
concordats,  the  religious  parties,  the  "Neo-Catholics,"  the 
Law  of  1905  for  the  Nineteenth  Century.    Church  influence 

37  Louis  Philippe's  reign  as  seen  by  Thiers — quoted  in  Le  Goffe— 
L.  A.  Thiers  p.  52  from  the  article  of  one  Mrs.  Crawford — the  Paris 
correspondant  of  the  London  News,  in  an  account  of  a  conversation 
she  had  with  M.  Thiers. 

168 


in  the  France  of  today  is  as  important  as  it  was  in  the  earlier 
times.  You  will  find  it  in  the  Jesuit  Controversy,  the  Dreyfus 
Case,-  and  it  has  been  at  the  basis  of  the  divisions  in  the 
Right  and  Right  Center  in  very  recent  times.  Literature, 
Art,  Religion — all  have  played  and  continue  to  play  their 
part  in  the  history  of  modern  France. 

There  has  been,  however,  still  another  reason  for  selecting 
this  particular  period,  and  while  that  reason  may  not  appeal 
to  every  historian,  still  it  should  perhaps  be  acknowledged. 
The  Reign  of  Louis  Philippe  covers  one  of  the  brightest  and 
most  noble  periods  in  the  history  of  the  Modern  Roman  Cath- 
olic Church.  And  it  is  of  particular  interest  to  recount  in  a 
day  when,  despite  the  fact  that  the  barriers  seem  to  be  fall- 
ing, Christianity  as  a  whole  seems  to  be  lying  under  a  dark 
and  heavy  cloud,  one  of  the  noblest  strifes  of  a  few  members 
of  the  mother-church.  In  the  twentieth  century,  it  is,  here, 
indifference,  that  very  plague  that  La  Mennais  sought  to 
heal ;  there,  it  is  allied  with  politics ;  at  another  place  we  find 
hatred,  and  at  still  another,  a  condition  that  is  still  worse — 
a  belief  in  it  as  a  beautiful  institution  of  the  past,  a  senti- 
mental or  worse  an  aesthetic  resort  to  a  fading  practice  and 
belief!  Surely  the  period  of  the  "Neo-Catholics"  show  that, 
despite  the  terrible  obstacles  of  the  time,  Christianity  was  by 
no  means  dead,  and  only  the  enthusiasm  and  firm  belief  of 
a  small  group  was  needed  to  fan  the  dormant  flame  concealed 
in  the  apparent  ashes  it  had  left  in  human  hearts.  There 
have  been  other  La  Mennais,  Montalemberts  and  Ozanams — 
they  have  been  in  all  countries — the  "Round  Table"  in  Ger- 
many, the  Young  Liberals  in  Italy,  the  despised  "Puseyites" 
in  England — all  have  at  different  times  awakened  a  Faith  that 
seemed  to  be  sleeping  the  sleep  of  the  dead.  And,  if  we  are 
to  judge  from  examples  in  years  not  so  far  back,  there  are 
and  will  be  others  to  come  who  may  carry  to  its  last  and 
final  fulfillment,  after  many  changes  and  many  struggles  the 
great  vision  of  the  "Xeo-Catholics." 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


The  bibliography  has  been  divided  into  sources  and  secon- 
dary works.  Under  the  former  are  found  the  subdivisions, 
documents,  newspapers,  letters,  memoirs,  etc.  The  docu- 
ments are  scattered  and  access  to  them  is  difficult,  the  three 
papal  bulls  quoted  may  be  found  in  the  archives  of  any 
Episcopal  library  in  France  and  a  French  translation  of  them 
has  recently  been  published  in  the  same  cover  with  La  Mennais 
"Affaires  de  Rome."  The  other  documents  cited  with  the 
exception  of  M.  Casimir  Perier's  Memorandum  (Archives 
Nationales,  Paris,  Dept.  Ext.  and  Appendix  Mem.  du  Baron 
de  Barante  II)  have  been  taken  from  the  "Archives  Par- 
lementaires,"  J.  Madrid  et  E  Laurent,  vols.  LVI-CVI,  Ander- 
son's Constitutions  and  Other  Documents  Illustrative  of  the 
History  of  France,  Hansard's  Parliamentary  Debates  1840 
(for  Mehemet-Ali  episode),  the  Apostolic  Letters  of  Pius  IX 
and  Gregory  XYI  and  Taschereau  "Revue  Retrospective,"  a 
collection  of  documents  discovered  at  the  Palace  after  Louis 
Philippe's  flight  in  1848. 

The  newspapers  which  form  the  sources  of  the  greater  part 
of  the  original  material  are  found,  for  the  most  part,  in 
France.  The  most  complete  collection  of  VAvenir,  the 
journal  edited  by  La  Mennais,  however,  is  found  in  the  British 
Museum.  A  complete  collection  of  Ami  de  la  Religion  et 
du  vol  (the  Gallican  paper),  of  L'Union  Catholique  and 
L'Univers  both  "Neo-Catholics,"  is  preserved  in  the  Library  of 
the  "Grand  Seminaire"  at  Blois.  In  addition  many  other 
papers  have  been  employed^  selected  for  the  most  part,  as 
types  of  the  various  political  opinions  of  the  time.  With  this 
in  mind  I  have  employed  principally;  Journal  des  Debats 
(Republican),  le  Constitutionnel  (Liberal)  le  Moniteur  and 
le  Message?  des  Chambves  (Government),  le  Drapeau  Blanc 
(Legitimist),  le  Globe  (Doctrinaire),  le  National  (Repub- 
lican), la  Presse  (Opposition)  and  the  three  religious  papers 

170 


mentioned  above.  All  but  the  I'Avenir,  l: 'Union  Catholique, 
and  UUnivers  may  be  found  in  the  Archives  of  the  "Bib- 
liotheque Nationale"  and  the  "Bibliotheque  Ste  Genevieve"  at 
Paris.  These,  together  with  an  excellent  collection  of  con- 
temporary pamphlets  on  the  political  and  religious  controversies 
of  the  time  preserved  at  the  Grand  Seminaire,  the  Bibliotheque 
de  la  Archeveche  and  the  Bibliotheque  du  Chateau,  all  in 
Blois,  give  a  complete  and  many  sided  view  of  the  events 
recounted. 

In  addition  to  these  primary  sources  there  is  a  vast  number 
of  memoirs,  collections  of  letters  and  contemporary  literature 
available — but  most  of  these,  in  turn,  are  found  at  the  Biblio- 
theque Nationale.  Among  the  most  reliable  and  valuable 
should  be  mentioned,  the  two  editions  of  La  Mennais'  Letters 
by  Forgues  and  by  Blaize,  Guizot's  Memoires,  de  Broglie 
Souvenirs,  Casimir  Perier  Discours,  de  Barante  Souvenirs, 
Metternich  Memoirs,  Ozanam,  "Pages  choisies"  (ed.  Chatelain), 
Sainte-Beuve  "Causeries  du  Lundi"  and  "Chroniques  Paris- 
iennes"  and  also  perhaps,  though  less  reliable  Louis  Blanc's 
"Histoire  de  dix  ans."  Another  very  important  addition  to 
this  list  are  the  Letters  of  Alphonse  d'Herbelot  (1828-1830) 
published  for  "La  Societe  d'Histoire  Contemporaine"  in  1908. 

The  secondary  authorities  are  numerous,  but,  as  a  rule,  are, 
not  available  in  this  country.  Of  the  general  histories  on 
Louis  Philippe's  reign  Thureau-Dangin  "Histoire  de  la  Mon- 
archic de  Juillet"  (7  vols.)  is  especially  commendable  abounding 
in  information,  references  and  bibliographical  material.  Along 
with  this  work,  d'Haussonville's  "Histoire  de  la  Politique  Ex- 
terieure  de  la  Monarchic  de  Juillet  (4  vols.)  and  Bourgeois 
Manuel  historique  de  la  Politique  Exterieure  de  la  France  vol. 
Ill  should  be  mentioned.  Stern's  "Geschichte  Europas"  (vol.  3) 
and  Hillebrand's  "Geschichte  Frankreichs"  (2  vols.)  are  ex- 
cellent general  histories  on  the  period.  There  are  many  his- 
tories on  particular  phases  of  Louis  Philippe's  reign  but  the 
majority  of  them  are  mediocre.  The  best  of  this  group  are: 
Debidour  "Histoire  de  l'figlise  et  l'fitat  en  France  de  1798  a 
1879"  in  which  the  author  gives  a  decidedly  anti-clerical  account 
of  the  period,  and  Thureau-Dangin  "Histoire  de  l'Eglise  et 
de  l'Etat  sous  la    Monarchic  de  Juillet,"  in  which  the  author 


171 


relates  in  a  sympathetic  spirit  the  "Neo-Catholic  Movement," 
devoting  but  a  very  few  pages  to  the  antecedent  movement  in 
which  VAvenir  figured.  Other  important  works  almost  in- 
valuable to  the  student  interested  in  the  history  of  the  church 
in  Europe  are  Spiiller's  "Evolution  Politique  et  Sociale  de 
l'Eglise,"  Nielson's  "Geschichte  der  Papstums  im  19  Jahrhun- 
derts"  and  Gams  "Geschichte  der  Kirche."  Among  the  best 
biographies  the  most  important  and  best  documented  are : 
Mazade  "Thiers-Ciquante  Annees  d'Histoire  Contemporaine"  de 
Remusat  "Thiers,"  de  Crozals  "Guizot,"  C.  Boutard  "La 
Mennais,  Sa  vie  et  ses  Oeuvres,"  a  very  recent  publication 
(1913)  C.  Marechal — "La  Jeunesse  de  La  Mennais,"  a  valuable 
and  scholarly  consideration  of  the  abbe's  early  years,  G.  P.  G. 
d'Haussonville, — Lacordaire ;  Lecaunet-Montalembert,  de 
Meaux  Montalembert,  C.  A.  Ozanam, — Vie  de  Frederic 
Ozanam,  and  Pougeois,  Life  of  Piux  IX. 


172 


PRIMARY  SOURCES 


A.  Documents: 

Lettera  Indirezzata  dal  S.  Padre  di  Vescovi  di  Polonia  II 
-Giugno  1832  per  inculcare  la  Massima  della  Chiesa  Catholica 
sulla  soumessione  alia  podesta  temporale  nell  ordine  Civile. 

Memoire  presentee  au  S.  P.  Gregoire  XVI  par  les  Redac- 
teurs  de  I'Avenir  et  les  membres  de  l'Agence  pour  la  Defence 
de  la  Liberte  Religeuse." 

Sanctissimi  Domini  Nostri  Gregorii  Divina  Providentia 
Papae  XVI  Epistola  Encyclica  ad  omnes  Patriarchas,  Primates, 
Archiespiscopos  et  Episcopos.  Aug.  1832  A.D. 

Lettre  de  M.  de  la  Mennais  au  Cardinal  Pacca,  Paris  27 
Fevr.  1 83 1,  Paris.  Lettre  du  Cardinal  Pacca  a  M.  l'Abbe  de 
la  Mennais,  16  Aout  1832,  Rome. 

Epistola  Encyclica  ad  omnes  Patriarches  Primates  Arch- 
episcopos  et  Episcopos.  7  Jul  1834. 

Memorandum  de  Casimir  Perier  sur  les  affaires  d'Ancone. 

Collections  of  Documents: 

Henri  Lacombe — Proces  verbeaux  de  la  Commission  de  la 
loi  Falloux. 

Hansard — Parliamentary  Debates  vols,  for  1840. 

J.  Madival  et  E.  Laurent — Archives  Parlementaires  2e  serie 
T.  S.  LVI-CVI. 

C.  M.  Anderson — The  Constitutions  and  other  Documents 
Illustrative  of  the  History  of  France,  1789-1901. 

Apostolic  Letters  of  Pius  IX  and  Gregory  XVI,  1899. 

Taschereau — Revue  Retrospective,  1848. 

B.  Newspapers  and  Pamphlets: 

Correspondant  1832- 1848. 

Constitutionnel  1832-1848. 

Drapeau  Blanc  1840- 1845. 

Journal  des  Debats  1830- 1848. 

l'Ami  de  la  Religion  et  du  roi  1830- 1848. 

I'Avenir  1830-1831. 

le  Globe  1830- 1848. 

La  Patrie  1840- 1848. 


173 


l'Univers  1835-1848. 
Le  Commerce  1836-1848. 
La  Reforme  1830-1848. 
London  Times  1830- 1848. 
Messager  des  Chambres  1830- 1848. 
Moniteur  1830-1848. 
National  1830- 1848. 
Quotidienne  1832-1848. 
Revue  des  deux  Mondes. 
"le  Roi  des  Barricades"  I  da  St.  Elme  1844. 
"La  Poire  Couronnee"  1844  (Gill)  1844. 
"Appel  a  la  France  sur  les  veritables  causes  de  la  Revolu- 
tion de  1830,"  de  Suleau  Paris  1831. 
"Avertissements  aux  souverains  sur  les  dangers  actuels  de 

l'Europe,"  de  Jouffroy,  Paris  1830. 
"Compte  Rendue  des  Elections  de  1846,"  Henri  de  Riancey, 
1846  Paris. 

*'De  l'Avenir  de  la  France,"  de  Conney,  Paris  1832. 
"Reflexions  d'un  Royaliste,"  F.  Dolle,  Paris  183 1. 

C.  Memoirs,  Letters,  Contemporary  Literature,  etc. 

de  Barante — Souvenirs,  4  vols,  Paris  1890. 

O.  Barrot — Memoirs,  2  vols  Paris,  1874-9. 

P.  J.  Beranger — Ma  Biographie,  Paris,  1899. 

L.  Blanc — Histoire  de  Dix  Ans,  2  vols,  Paris  1841. 

A.  Berard — Souvenirs  Historiques  sur  la  Revolution  de  1830, 

Paris  1834. 
de  Broglie — Ecrits  et  Discours,  Paris  1863. 

Souvenirs  TS  III  &  IV,  Paris  1886. 
A.  Capefigue — La  Gouvernment  de  Juillet  1830-1835. 
A.  De  Tocqueville — La  Democratic  en  Amerique  1840. 
X.  Doudan — Melanges  et  Lettres,  Paris,  1876-7. 
A.  Dupin — Memoirs,  3  vols,  Paris  1855-1861. 
Guizot— Memoirs  TS  VI  &  VII,  Paris  1858-1868. 
H.  Heine — Lutece  1840- 1845. 

Franzosische  Zustande  II,  1840-3. 
A.   d'Herbelot  Lettres.     "La  Jeunesse   Liberale,"  Paris, 

1908. 

V.  Hugo — Preface  "le  Roi's  s'amuse,"  1834  Paris. 

H.  Lacordaire — Correspondance  inedite  T.  X  Paris,  1886. 

de  la  Fayette — Memoirs  T  VI,  1832. 

F.  de  la  Mennais — Correspondance  ed  Forgues,  Paris  1858. 

"     "     "       ed  A.  Blaize,  1866. 
Une  correspondance  inedite  published  by 
V.  Girand — Revue  des  Deux  Mondes,  1  Nov.  1905. 
F.  de  la  Mennais  Oeuvres,  Paris,  i860. 
Metternich— Memoirs,  vols.  V-VII  N.  Y.  1880-4. 


174 


Montalembert — Discours,  Paris  1861. 

F.  Ozanam — Pages  choisies,  ed.  Chatelain,  Paris  1898. 

La  Philosophic  Chretienne  T.  I  Paris  1846. 
A.  Pepin — Deux  Ans  de  Regne,  Paris  1833. 
Casimir-Perier — Opinions  et  Discours,  Paris,  1838. 
Sainte-Beuve — Causeries  de  Lundi  T  XI,  Paris  1874. 

— Nouveau  Lundis  Paris  1870. 

— Chroniques  Parisiennes,  Paris,  1876. 
Saint  Simon — Oeuvres  T  I,  1865- 1878. 
Georges  Sand — Histoire  de  ma  Vie,  Paris  1854-5. 
de  Talleyrand — Memoires,  vols.  Ill,  V,  Paris  1891. 
A.  Thiers — Discours  Parlementaires — Paris  1879-1883. 
L.  Veuillot — Rome  et  Lorette,  2  vols.  1841  Paris. 
— [Melanges  1845  Paris. 

SECONDARY  AUTHORITIES 

A.  Histories: 

E.  Bourgeois — Manuel  Historique  de  la  Politique  Exteriure 

T.  Ill,  Paris  1909. 
Cambridge  Modern  History — vol.  X,  ch.  15,  and  vol.  XI 

ch.  2,  E.  Bourgeois. 
/.  B.  H.  R.  Capefigue — Histoire  de  l'Europe  depuis  1'  Avene- 

ment  de  Louis  Philippe,  10  vols,  Paris  1845. 
Debidour — Histoire    Diplomatique    de    l'Europe.  Paris 

1865-79. 

/.  0.  d'Haussonznlle — Histoire  de  la  Politique  Exterieure 
de  la  Monarchic  de  Juillet  to.    2  vols.  Paris  1850. 

K,  Hillebrand — Geschichte  Frankreichs  2  vols.,  1877-9. 

Lovisse  et  Ramband — Histoire  Generale  vol.  X,  chs.  11  and 
10,  Paris  1898. 

P.  Thureau-Dangin — Histoire  de  la  Monarchic  de  Juillet  ts. 

7,  Paris  1884-92. 
5.  Walpole — History  of  England. 

L.  Bardoux — La  Bourgeoisie  Franchise,  Paris  1890. 

/.   Cretineau-Joly — Histoire   de   Louis   Philippe   et  d'Or- 

leanism  t  I,  Paris  1862. 
Dalling  and  Bulwer — The  Monarchy  of  the  Middle  Classes, 

1838. 

A.  Debidour — Etudes  Critiques  sur  la  Revolution,  l'Empire 

et  la  Periode  Contemporaine,  Paris  1886. 
C.  Girandeau — La  Presse  Periodique,  Paris  1868. 
E.  Regnault — Histoire  de  Huit  Ans,  3  vols,  Paris  1894. 
/.  Tschernoff — Le  Parti  Republican  en  France,  Paris  1901. 
A.  Weill — Histoire  du  Parti  Republicain  en  France,  Paris 

1900. 

W.  Barry — The  Papacy  and  Modern  Times,  London  191 1. 


A.  Debidour — l'Eglise  et  l'£tat  en  France  de  1789  a  1879, 
Paris  191 1. 

Nielson — Geschichte  der  Papstums  ein  19  Jahrhunderts  ed. 
1902. 

Gams — Geschichte  der  Kirche,  Berlin  1899. 

P.  Thureau-Dangin — l'Eglise  et  l'Etat  sous  la  Monarchic 

de  Juillet,  Paris  1880. 
/.  Cretineau-Joly — Histoire  de  la  Compagnie  de  Jesus,  to. 

3  Paris  1889. 
Genin — Les  Jesuits  et  l'Universite,  Paris  1844. 
de  Grandmaison — La  Congregation,  Paris  1889. 
Grimaud — Histoire  de  la  Liberte  de  l'Enseignement,  Paris 

ed.  1906. 

A.  LeRoy-Beanlieu — Les  Catholiques  Liberaux  de  1830  a 
nos  Jours,  Paris  1885. 

— Les  Congregations  Religeuses  et 
l'Expansion  de  la  France,  Paris  1904. 

H.  de  Riancey — Histoire  Critique  de  la  Liberte  da  l'En- 
seignement en  France  to  2,  Paris  1844. 

s.de  Sacey — Varietes,  (til  de  la  Reaction,  Religieuse.) 

Georges  Souruges — Regimes  des  Congregations  en  France, 
Paris  ed.  1908. 

Bolton  King — History  of  Italian  Unity,  vol  I,  London  1899. 
Poggi — History  of  Italy,  vol.  II. 

W .  R.  Thayer — Dawn  of  Italian  Independence,  2  vols.  N.  Y. 
1892. 

B.  Biographies,  etc.  : 

W.  Bagelot — Beranger. 
R.  Cruice — Life  of  Palmerston. 
N.  Peyrat — Beranger  et  La  Mennais,  Paris  1862. 
W.  R.  Thayer — Life  and  Times  of  Cavour,  vol.  I,  N.  Y. 
1912. 

A.  Bardoue — Guizot,  Paris  1894. 
Je.  de  Crozals — Guizot,  Paris  1898. 

B.  Sarrans — Louis  Philippe,  Paris  1834. 

R.  Rush — Louis  Philippe,  King  of  France,  London  1849. 
LeGoff— Thiers,  1898. 

de  Mazade — Thiers,  Cinquante  Annees  d'  Histoire  Contem- 
poraine,  Paris  1884. 

C.  de  Remusat — Paris  ed.  1900. 
E.  Zevort — Thiers,  Paris  1892. 

P.  Chocarne — Vie  du  Pere  Lacordaire,  Paris  1867. 
G.  P.  G.  d'Haussonville — Lacordaire,  Paris  1895. 
Foisset — Lacordaire,  Paris  1870. 
Ledos — Lacordaire,  Paris  1870. 


176 


H.  Villard  £tude  Biographique  et  Critique  sur  le  Pere 

Lacordaire,  1890. 
Mgr.  Lagrange — Vie  de  Mgr.  Dupanloup,  Paris,  3  vols. 

1883-4. 

/.  Bonnet — La  Renaissance  Catholique  au  Debut  du  XIX* 

Siecle,  La  Mennais  et  son  £cole,  Geneve  1905. 

Abbe  Charles  Boutard — La  Mennais,  Sa  Vie  et  ses  Oeuvres, 

2  vols.  Paris  1908. 
Hon.  W .  Gibson — The  abbe  La  Mennais  and  the  Liberal 

Roman  Catholic  Movement  in  France,  London  1899. 
P.  A.  R.  Janet — La  Philosophie  de  La  Mennais,  1895. 
Christian  Marechal — La  Jeunesse  de  La  Mennais,  Paris  191 3. 
/.  H.  Newman — The  Fall  of  La  Mennais,  London  i860. 
G.  Sainte-Foi — Souvenirs  de  Jeunesse  1828-35  La  Mennais 

et  son  £cole,  Paris  191 1. 
P.  Lacannet — Montalembert,  Paris  1897. 
Vte  de  Meaux — Montalembert,  Paris  1897. 
Mrs.  O lip hant— -Memoir  of  Montalembert,  X.  Y.  1872. 
P.  A.  R.  D.  Chaveau — F.  Ozanam,  Montreal  1887. 
Charles  Huit — F.  Ozanam,  Paris  ed.  1900. 
Lacordaire — Xotice  sur  Ozanam,  Paris  1855. 
C.  A.  Ozanam — Vie  de  Frederic  Ozanam,  Paris  1882. 
/.  Laur — La  Femme  Chretienne  au  XIXe  Siecle,  2  vols. 

Paris  1895. 

P.  de  Pontlevoy — Vie  du  R.  P.  de  Ravignan,  Paris  i860. 
Pougeois — Life  of  Pius  IX,  Paris  1877-81. 

C.  Magazine  Articles,  etc.  : 

British  Quarterly  Review,  vol  9. 
Contemporary  Review,  vol  9,  M.  Kaufman. 
Edinburgh  Review,  Feb.  1840. 
English  Church  Review,  May-June,  191 5. 
Fortnightly  Review,  P.  Downden,  vol.  II.    W.  S.  Lilly, 
vol.  72. 

International  Review,  A.  Langel,  vol.  9. 
Living  Age,  vol.  6,  27. 
Temple  Bar  Magazine,  vol.  41. 

Revue  des  Deux  Mondes  1842  and  1905  (Victor  Giraud.) 


177 


APPENDIX  I 


ACTE  D'UNION 
I 

La  partie  spirituelle  de  la  societe  doit  etre  afranchie  com- 
plement de  Fintervention  du  Pouvoir  politique.  En 
consequence : 

1.  La  liberte  de  conscience  et  de  culte  doit  etre  entiere, 
de  telle  sorte  que  le  Pouvoir  ne  s'immisce  en  avcune  manere 
et  sous  aucun  pretext,  dans  l'enseignement,  la  discipline  et 
les  ceremonies  d'un  culte. 

2.  La  liberte  de  la  presse  ne  peut  etre  entravee  par  aucune 
mesure  preventive,  sous  quelque  forme  que  cette  mesure  se 
produise. 

3.  La  liberte  d'education  doit  etre  aussi  complete  que  la 
liberte  des  cultes  dont  elle  fait  essentiellement  partie,  et  que- 
la  liberte  de  la  presse  puisqu'elle  n'est,  comme  celle-ci,  qu'une 
forme  de  liberte  meme  de  l'intelligence,  et  de  la  manifestation 
des  opinions. 

II 

Par  cela  meme  que  la  partie  spirituelle  de  la  Societe  doit 
etre  affranchise  completement,  Taction  du  pouvoir  constitu- 
tionel  ne  peut  s'exercer  que  dans  l'ordre  des  interets  materiels, 
et  dans  cet  ordre,  nous  admettons  qu'il  faut  tendre  a  un  etat 
de  choses  dans  lequel  toutes  les  affaires  locales  seront  admini- 
strees  en  commun  par  ceux  qui  sont  interesses,  sous  la  pro- 
tection du  pouvoir  destine  des  lois  uniquement,  qu'elle  qu'en 
soit  la  forme,  a  maintenir  l'unite  politique,  l'harmonie  entre 
les  diverses  administrations,  particulieres,  a  pourvoir  aux  in- 
terets generaux  et  a  la  defense  exterieure  de  l'Etat. 

Ill 

Et  comme  la  societe,  dont  la  justice  est  la  base,  ne  peut 
faire  des  progres  reels  que  par  un  plus  grand  developpement 
une  application  plus  etendue  de  la  loi  de  justice  et  de  charite, 
nous  admettons  aussi  que  Ton  doit  tendre  incessament  a  elever 
Intelligence  et  a  ameliorer  la  condition  materielle  des  classes 
inferiueres,  pour  les  faire  participer  de  plus  en  plus  aux 
avantages  sociaux." 


i7f 


